Is this the unluckiest ship in the fleet?

BBC news

 

Does she have "D13" splattered over her side?? :grin: :grin:

 

I was on it when it was in refit post-crash, and left it after BOST on completion of the refit. Despite Fleet's insistance that it was fully repaired and operational I was convinced the Ship was jinxed. Glad I got off when I did!

:shock:

 

A good excuse for Bliar to mothball it.

 

I was surprised to read reports of how much of the ship's water-tight integrity had been compromised by poor fitting of MCT's and other water-tight boundary penetrations. After hitting Wolf Rock she was lucky not to have been sunk. Lack of integrity is something that is regularly found in some civilian hulls but nevertheless surprising [for me] in an RN warship.

RM

 

Try the Traf, she has had more bad luck than most but that might be down more to her pennant number SSN13!

 

An RN hull designed using civvy parameters.
The same type that decided that civvy wiring should be installed on type 21s etc.. nothing wrong with PTFE wiring on a cruise ship but totally lethal on a warship. it saves weight but gives off toxic fumes in a fire.

 

HMS/m Osiris was also SSK13 (S13 fin number) but had a long and proud history of avoiding objects set in her path. Any more members of the 13 club out there? Now HMS/m Opportune SSK20 had a long and glorious history of knocking into objects about the seven seas.

Nutty

 

Can any one provide a link to the loss of Nottingham's Lynx due to lack of motion lotion?

 

rictic wrote

What parameters would those be?

The same type that decided that civvy wiring should be installed on type 21s etc.. nothing wrong with PTFE wiring on a cruise ship but totally lethal on a warship. it saves weight but gives off toxic fumes in a fire.

PTFE? Do you mean PVC? And why is it any less lethal on a cruise ship?

Bergen wrote

A credit to the MEO, CMEM and the rest of the Ship's Company.

spearfish asked

Other than the BBC link in the first post? I don't know this story but fuel problems come in all shapes and sizes and doesn't always mean someone forgot to top up.

Not all OPDEFs make the press so let's be careful.

 

PTFE is a superb insulator which is used extensively on cables. Unfortunately when it burns the fumes emitted are extremely toxic. In fact when I did a practical wiring course at Daedalus in the 70s we were warned not to strip the cable using our teeth.
A naval warship by its very name is more likely to suffer fire damage than a cruise liner (one hopes).

 

Quote Seadog's posting

Bergen wroteQuote::
After hitting Wolf Rock she was lucky not to have been sunk.

"A credit to the MEO, CMEM and the rest of the Ship's Company."

Were the bridge staff/watchkeepers not part of that ships company then. It being them that required the MEO and CMEM and staff to save the ship in the begining.

Why did the Captain have to go ashore with the sick rating other than to glad hand the local big wheel and add another place to his book of places I have visited. Then, he is the Captain and not part of the ships company.

Now we are just left with Slim's origional question, "why did the Lynx run out of fuel"

NUtty

 

Fires on passenger ships are very common and often fatal, recently Star Princess. Warships aren't in action that often and have more trained personnel to tackle fires. I'd argue that there are more fires pro rata in cruise ships/ferries/liners than war canoes in peacetime and toxic fumes are toxic fumes.

As for PVC and PTFE, what should we be using in ships, war or otherwise?

 

Nutty asked

Seadog was inclusive.

Nutty asked

He is allowed to. His call. Whether or not he made the right call was decided at his Court Martial. I've often sailed under the command of the XO. I suspect I'm not alone.


Nutty also asked

I don't see Slim's (or anyone elses' ) original question Nutty. Who (other than the BBC) said it ran out of fuel?

 

As for PVC and PTFE, what should we be using in ships, war or otherwise

Rubber or deritive of used for many years in warships with no toxic fumes.

Nutty

 

Nottingham's situation was an unfortunate combinations of error, misjudgement, bad practice and luck. The decision to withdraw her from the grounding was a ballsy call, given that the options were to founder where she was under increasing damage and sink out off the coast in a rather poor weather system. The ship's company performed matchlessly, and executed superb damage control technique across eight ship sections and with depleting stores and resources. It can't be emphasised what heorics were endeavoured that night and throughout the next few days by people who were running on empty and in anyone else's Navy would have been out in the liferafts. The CO's misquoted comments the next day were a typical misrepresentation of a man stretched paper thin to a dozy-arsed media idiocy. Having taught him, I vouch he is a decent chap, undeserved of his fate.

It is significant, however, to note the role of watertight integrity in this incident. Whilst Nottingham suffered water ingress from cable glands and even the fixed hatch waterwall (something that could have been avoided if they'd listened to the original designer of it) the FAMR remained intact, flooding was transveresly even and these two breaks afforded the ship enough reserve of buoyancy to prevent her losing her stability shape and capsizing by a fast sinking bow. With approximately 150 people below the upperdeck in the foward section at the crucial moments battling what was going on, the loss of life would have been catastrophic. The MEO's assessment of the ship's condition and decision to plough on was nothing short of miraculous. No one should be in any position to criticise the ship's company during her situation. Despite a major unit, recently out of refit being almost written off, the plusses to counetr that minus were more than enough.

Shaft brake fires, although uncommon, are always a risk in COGOG/GAG ships. The new Twiflex brakes less so.

Levers

 

I think this one would give NOTTINGHAM a run for her money in the title race for unluckiest ship ... or ship's company at least!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermione_(1782)

SF

 

Good post Levers. I don't know the 2002 old man but a relative sailed with him and says he's a good bloke. MEO went to FOST and Chief Stoker to the DRU after Nottingham. Experience of the real thing is almost worth the grief (so long as no-one dies.)

Nutty, can you think of any shortcomings or limitations with rubber cable insulation?

 

Nottingham's Lynx ditching:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4315961.stm

 

Yes, but not toxic fumes that kill very readily, but then carrott juice is toxic if taken in to great amount as are peanuts to some.

Nutty

PS Like the nylon 8t's another idea where Pusser failed to remember their previous experiences or test the gear correctly. Do you excuse all of Pussers failings?