Submarines and blanking caps

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by alfred_the_great, May 2, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As the blank was on the hull and a system leg that wasn't tested unless the relief lifted. I'm not so sure the rip-outs would have made any difference.
    The relief itself could have been removed to facilitate testing without the leg being pressurised.
    I agree that a safe system of work should have picked up that the blank hadn't been removed. As someone will have signed to say the work on the system was completed according to the requirements stipulated in the work package.

    8O 8O 8O
  2. As far as I can remember SG reliefs aren't tested that often (in case they don't re-seat) but it won't be the first time the dockyard have left blanks in a system. Rosyth dockies did it on the digital depth system on Torbay. Caused no end of nause until we found out what they had done.
  3. You have not read the dit properly. You also seem not to have an understanding of depth-dependent-systems pressure testing.
  4. Now, I'm no Back Afty, but even I know, (Part 3 and BSQ qualified me) that there is a Primary Loop and a Secondary Loop. So, how does this steam get to be 'radioactive' then! :oops:
  5. I think they're implying that if the SG blows it'll rupture the primary loop..........but then again
  6. What is going to cause the SG pressure to rise sufficiently to lift the reliefs?
  7. I know nothing of Sub practice, but in Petro-chem blanking caps usually have tags that extend beyond the gland indicating that a blank is in place (the extreme are "spectacle plates").

    Is this not standard ?


  8. I'm well aware of ththe concept. However, I was merely stating the if the hull had a blanking cap on it, acounting for rip-outs wouldn't have made any difference.
  9. A bit difficult to spot if the blank is fitted on the outside of the boat, underwater.

    Re-read FPN095.
  10. Mods - any chance of moving this thread to a special sun-dodger anorak forum? It seems to have progressed beyonf current affairs a bit!
  11. The Fishing vessel safety dit? :wink: :wink:
  12. Have I got my FPNs wrong?
    In my defence, I do not have a list of pubs at home. :oops:
    Is it 93? Though to me 95 still seems right.
    And are you sure 98 isn't 'Fishing Vessel Avoidance'?
  13. Why is it that whenever expert witnesses are called, they nearly always come out with dramatic and sensational phrases such as;
    I note that the expert I refer to appears to have no practical experience of production and maintenance;

    I would suggst that he has largely (see what I did then) insulated himself from the opportunity to personally make dangerous errors while engaged in practical engineering.
  14. Your assessment of Large is spot on. He conned the Gibraltarian Government into letting him act as their advisor during the Tireless repair, and had to have even the most basic of engineering concepts (in particular, why water boils at different temperatures depending on pressure) explained to him at great length. The man is an idiot, but one that the media are happy to rely on for provocative quotes.
  15. Never read it, just used one of your favourite phrases 'Sharp Pencil, Clear consceince(sp) when signing to say I had read it :)
  16. Its the same old story,isn't it? Those that can, do. Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, teach teachers. And those that can't teach teacgers becom consultants. Oh when will it end?
  17. That is a significant point. The general public either don't understand, don't care or are happy with it. In all fairness, though, how the hell could you vote against it?

Share This Page