[OT] left hand down a bit

[Tim]

https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

[Spike]

Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:

> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

That’s one Naval Officer that’ll never captain another ship…not even a
hooter was sounded.

I don’t think the ‘there’s something wrong with the bloody ship’ defence
will run…

--
Spike

[chrisnd @ukrm]

HMS Bangor? - The clue's in the name shurely?

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

[Spike]

chrisnd @ukrm <chr...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 11:47, Spike wrote:
>> Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

>> That’s one Naval Officer that’ll never captain another ship…not even a
>> hooter was sounded.

>> I don’t think the ‘there’s something wrong with the bloody ship’ defence will run…

Perhaps it will…

Reports suggest the ship performed an uncommanded action when it went into
reverse.

I thought there were signals (flag, siren, radio) for ‘ship out of
control’.

> HMS Bangor? - The clue's in the name shurely?

:-)


--
Spike

[PipL]

On 20/01/2024 14:37, Spike wrote:
> I thought there were signals (flag, siren, radio) for ‘ship out of
> control’.

There are: the visual signal of crew running around waving their arms,
followed by an audible signal comprising one loud crunch.


--
Pip

CHUMP #1
(CHarge Up MuPpet)

[Champ]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:

>https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour

heh. Saw this on twitter the other day

I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

[WUN]

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50 PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it

It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.

--
WUN

[Champ]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
searching only offered me information on pork farming.

Can you expand what you mean?

[chrisnd @ukrm]

On 24/01/2024 12:53, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
>> It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>> aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>> a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

I wondered too but assumed I was being whooshed...

OTOH in my morris group (Black Pig Border), 'switching pigs' would be
wife swapping :-)

[Mark Olson]

Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
>>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
>>a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
>
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

I haven't the faintest, and I'd rather not chance seeing the Google
search results. So I'd appreciate an explainer as well.

It is surprising that two Navy ships could collide like this in a
non-combat situation. Obviously there had to have been a chain of
unfortunate circumstances to allow this to happen. I agree, someone's
career has just been flushed down the head.

[crn]

No, they usually get promoted out of harms wy

[Mark Olson]

I suspect that the skipper didn't have this title on his bookshelf...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FpVyjxxTC8DJVSYd6

[Bruce Horrocks]

In other Navy news, the Admiralty Board has announced that no future
ships are to be named in honour of HRH Prince William in case the
command "Fire at will!" be misunderstood.

;-)

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

[WUN]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 12:53:52 PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
> >> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
> >> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it
>
> >It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
> >aft power for some time *after* the collision. Which is either massive "switch pigs", or
> >a control problem. Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.
> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
> Can you expand what you mean?

A term used to mean that you have made a pig's ear of setting a crucial switch. In military
aviation, you have evaded all defences, navigated perfectly, executed a brilliant
"Maverick-esque" 5.5G turn, lined it all up just so, and some cunt forgot to set
the super-hi-tech missile to "fire". Oops. In this case I suspect something akin to
"Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

--
WUN

[WUN]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09 PM UTC, WUN wrote:
> In this case I suspect something akin to
> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.

--
WUN

[Champ]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:43:15 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09?PM UTC, WUN wrote:
>> In this case I suspect something akin to
>> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".

>Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
>the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.

cnut

<italian accent>
"I miss-a *one* fuel stop!"

[Higgins]

They really don’t but good to see you maintaining standards.

[WUN]

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:23:08 AM UTC, Champ wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:43:15 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 10:39:09?PM UTC, WUN wrote:
> >> In this case I suspect something akin to
> >> "Full ahead!" when someone forgot to switch it from "Full astern".
>
> >Or - to put it in more local terms - let's say someone has done two laps of
> >the Mountain Circuit, and absolutely *must* pull into the pit for fuel, and... doesn't.
> cnut
>
> <italian accent>
> "I miss-a *one* fuel stop!"

<Contented sigh>

Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

--
WUN

[Colin Irvine]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Every day's a school day!

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

[Champ]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
:-(

[Ace]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:53:48 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:00:50?PM UTC, Champ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:24:15 +0000, Tim <nob...@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/some-damage-sustained-following-minehunters-collision-bahrain-harbour
>>> heh. Saw this on twitter the other day
>
>>> I'm interested to hear what Ace might have to say about it

Saw the headline/article, but only just watched the video.

FFS! I cannot for the life of me imagine what they were thinking or
trying to do. My only thought is that they may have been trying to go
alongside the moored vessel, but that's really unlikely with all of
the empty quay space in front of it.

Having done the trip to Corfu last year I imagine you have a much
better understanding of what they should have been doing. Even if
they'd been properly lined up they would not have needed that much
speed. You may recall me talking about my 'slow and steady' approach
to mooring - this is why.

>>It is notable that the ship that collided with the moored one apparently remained under considerable
>>aft power for some time *after* the collision.

Yes, it would appear so.

>>Which is either massive "switch pigs", or a control problem.

Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
which is what it looks like, either.

>>Either way, I suspect at least one naval career is over.

My resignation would have been on the desk within minutes.

>I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>searching only offered me information on pork farming.

I've never heard of it either, FWIW.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

[Ace]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:

Bad form and all...

>Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
>it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
>which is what it looks like, either.

I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
warning at such a crucial point.

So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

[Sqirrel99]

Ace wrote:
> I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
> full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
> computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
> eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
> case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
> warning at such a crucial point.
>
> So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.

Not unlike the old motorsport 'electrical failure' excuse -
yeah, the conrod severed a wire on its way out of the crankcase.

[Colin Irvine]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:54:19 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....
>
>And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
>:-(

https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum


--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

["Worst...@dizum.com]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:21:26 +0000, Colin Irvine <lo...@colinandpat.co.uk> wrote:

> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum

Well, THAT clears it up, don't it (for us Colonials)? However, THIS
might:

+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_Drum

--
Worst Case

["Worst...@dizum.com]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:53:48 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

> >On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:

> >I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
> >searching only offered me information on pork farming.

> I've never heard of it either, FWIW.

The Spirit moves me to descant upon the sorry state of search engines.
They used to return determinate lists, which could be shortened by
applying various filters upon date, keywords included, keywords
excluded, and host domains. No longer, it seems. Perhaps this is in
response to the emerging breadth of the Web. Nowadays, in order to
produce a foreshortened list, a search engine tries to conjure the
best sense of the search terms given and serves the most likely hits
from a pool of already regularly served sources. The old filters are
still more or less syntactically correct but do not act upon a
definite list — only a foreshortened one, which may or may not include
any of the references you seek. The feeling is like searching Google
Groups: You know the truth is out there, but wringing out determinate
results is futile no matter how you twist the search terms.

--
Worst Case

[Turby]

Whoa! I started to read that, and my mouth opened. The words came out,
but not with a Yankee accent. I swear it was Devonese! Bizarre. But
beautiful.

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

[WUN]

I am obliged to the honourable gentleman. Specifically I was thinking a tad lower on
the cultural scale. I am *sure* I remember an episode of "Steptoe and Son" where
Harry Corbett quoted the poem as above. I'll be damned if I can track it down though.
It clearly struck a chord with me, because I occasionally bring it to mind in these
circumstances, and I can hear it clear as day.

<Sigh> I'll miss this place.

--
WUN

[Spike]

Why? Where’s it going?



--
Spike

[wessie]

Spike <aero....@mail.com> wrote in
news:l1ipp3...@mid.individual.net:

very soon RIP new posting to Google Groups

If only he knew some sort of person who specialised in legacy IT systems to
configure an nntp client ...

[Spike]

There was Usenet long before Google stuck their unwanted oar in, and
hopefully there will be long after they pull the plug on new postings.
However…

…for the technically bereft, they could try this web-based access:

<https://news.novabbs.org/aus+uk/thread.php?group=uk.rec.motorcycles>

--
Spike

[Colin Irvine]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:34:31 +0100 (CET), "Worst Case"@dizum.com
wrote:

I don't see any reference to Drake's 'ammock in that.

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

[Champ]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:13:36 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>> >On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:

>> >>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

>> >And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with

>> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum

>I am obliged to the honourable gentleman. Specifically I was thinking a tad lower on
>the cultural scale. I am *sure* I remember an episode of "Steptoe and Son" where
>Harry Corbett quoted the poem as above. I'll be damned if I can track it down though.
>It clearly struck a chord with me, because I occasionally bring it to mind in these
>circumstances, and I can hear it clear as day.

Yebbut - why did you refer to that poem in response to my post?

[Champ]

M neither! I can understand that a mistake might be made when doing
some maintenance work - but surely that would have been discovered as
soon as the vessel tried to move off? Not when in the middle of a
manouvre

[Colin Irvine]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:24:37 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:13:36 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> >On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>>> >wrote:
>
>>> >>Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....
>
>>> >And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
>
>>> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum
>
>>I am obliged to the honourable gentleman. Specifically I was thinking a tad lower on
>>the cultural scale. I am *sure* I remember an episode of "Steptoe and Son" where
>>Harry Corbett quoted the poem as above. I'll be damned if I can track it down though.
>>It clearly struck a chord with me, because I occasionally bring it to mind in these
>>circumstances, and I can hear it clear as day.
>
>Yebbut - why did you refer to that poem in response to my post?

My guess is it's a non-religious variation on "God's in his heaven and
all's right with the world".

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

[WUN]

Just so, a general expression of contentment.

--
WUN

[PipL]

On 26/01/2024 17:59, "Worst Case"@dizum.com wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:53:48 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:51:48 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> I think I probably know what you mean by "switch pigs", but web
>>> searching only offered me information on pork farming.
>
>> I've never heard of it either, FWIW.
>
> The Spirit moves me to descant upon the sorry state of search engines.
> They used to return determinate lists, which could be shortened by
> applying various filters upon date, keywords included, keywords
> excluded, and host domains. No longer, it seems.

Google still does, Bing doesn't, as far as I can tell. Getting search
results out of Bing is like asking for a glass of water and getting a
bucketful in the face.


--
Pip

CHUMP #1
(CHarge Up MuPpet)

[petrolcan]

In article <14c7621f-6613-4522...@googlegroups.com>, WUN says...

See, now it makes complete sense

[Ace]

Google, bing, DDG are all pants these days. Not a single one allows
exact match searching using double-quotes any more and many of the
keywords seem to be completely ignored. I used to use + and -, for
example, but they make fuck all difference these days.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

[Champ]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:27:41 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 2:37:18?PM UTC, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:24:37 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>> >Yebbut - why did you refer to that poem in response to my post?

>> My guess is it's a non-religious variation on "God's in his heaven and
>> all's right with the world".

>Just so, a general expression of contentment.

You're *weird*

[PipL]

Just tried quotes on Google: still seems to work, at the top of the list
anyway.

[wessie]

PipL <plus...@nowhere.nul> wrote in news:l1n1a0...@mid.individual.net:

also, in google, click "tools" and there is a verbatim option

[Turby]

On 1/28/2024 4:22 AM, Champ wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:27:41 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 2:37:18?PM UTC, Colin Irvine wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:24:37 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Yebbut - why did you refer to that poem in response to my post?
>
>>> My guess is it's a non-religious variation on "God's in his heaven and
>>> all's right with the world".
>
>> Just so, a general expression of contentment.
>
> You're *weird*

Better than *wired*
IMHO

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 27/01/2024 14:28, Champ wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:44:08 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bad form and all...
>>
>>> Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
>>> it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
>>> which is what it looks like, either.
>
>> I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
>> full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
>> computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
>> eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
>> case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
>> warning at such a crucial point.
>>
>> So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.
>
> M neither! I can understand that a mistake might be made when doing
> some maintenance work - but surely that would have been discovered as
> soon as the vessel tried to move off? Not when in the middle of a
> manouvre

Tugs were used to move the ship away from its berth. Looks like it had
just been lined-up to move off when the engines went into reverse.

It's not clear why full (or significant) power seems to be being used so
close to the dockside. I can only assume the captain started off under
'slow ahead' (or whatever it is these days), realised he was going
backwards, thought the wind had caught the ship and so ordered more power.

It's unlikely that "rewiring fault" was uppermost in his mind.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

[Ace]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>Tugs were used to move the ship away from its berth.

Where did you get that information from? Only there are no signs of
tugs in the water anywhere near, there's no sign of water turbulence
they would have generated, which would normally be quite significant
when a ship is towed out sideways.

>Looks like it had
>just been lined-up to move off when the engines went into reverse.

It's not at all where I would expect it to be if tugs had been used.
And I'm not at allconvinced they would need tugs anyway, small[1]
light, highly manouvrerable with bow thrusters, an open sea exit and
no close neighbours on the quay.

>It's not clear why full (or significant) power seems to be being used so
>close to the dockside. I can only assume the captain started off under
>'slow ahead' (or whatever it is these days), realised he was going
>backwards, thought the wind had caught the ship and so ordered more power.

That does seem almost feasible, but I still cannot imagine a 'wiring
fault' suddenly appearing just at that moment.

[1] It's all relative.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

["Worst...@dizum.com]

> 'I could tell you my adventures — beginning from this morning,' said
> Alice a little timidly, 'but it's no use going back to yesterday,
> because I was a different person then.'

> 'Explain all that,' said the Mock Turtle.

> 'No, no! The adventures first,' said the Gryphon in an impatient
> tone, 'explanations take such a dreadful time.'

But you asked for it (explanations).

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....

... which to me seemed perfectly nonsensical, but, then ...

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:21:26 +0000, Colin Irvine <lo...@colinandpat.co.uk> wrote:

> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum

Apparently you felt (perhaps justifiably) that that in itself was all
the explanation needed. Indeed, it filled a gap in my experience as I
had never seen the poem (1897) by Sir Henry Newbolt (knighted in
1915), much less any allusion to it. Yet, the poem seemed itself
nonsensical to me because I lacked the proper cultural background even
to guess what the author was going on about. Seeking an exegesis, I
immediately turned up the Wikipedia entry.

> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:34:31 +0100 (CET), "Worst Case"@dizum.com
wrote:

> Well, THAT clears it up, don't it (for us Colonials)? However, THIS
> might:

> + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_Drum

... so my comment was to the effect that the poem did not stand by
itself and needed some sort of further explanation. Having said that,
I feel better (Thanks!) even though the Wikipedia explanation is a
pale thing beside the poem.

I should take the opportunity to explain, as well, that I owe a debt
to USENET for its steadfast ability to expand my consciousness.

--
Worst Case

[Tim]

On 27/01/2024 14:28, Champ wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:44:08 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:34:38 +0100, Ace <A...@ch.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bad form and all...
>>
>>> Difficult to imagine a control issue that could lead to that. Though
>>> it's difficult to imagine someone accidentally going full astern,
>>> which is what it looks like, either.
>
>> I see they're now claiming that 'faulty wiring' meant that it went
>> full astern instead of full ahead. I've not sailed on a
>> computer-controlled ship which I assume these would be, so in my
>> eperience there has always been a mechanical link in place. But in any
>> case it seems a bit odd that it would just suddenly happen with no
>> warning at such a crucial point.
>>
>> So I don't buy the faulty wiring excuse.
>
> M neither! I can understand that a mistake might be made when doing
> some maintenance work - but surely that would have been discovered as
> soon as the vessel tried to move off? Not when in the middle of a
> manouvre

In 2017 "Internal wiring issues had delayed the acceptance of RFA
Tidespring, the first of four new naval tankers until January this
year." taken from
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rfa-tidespring-arrives-home-new-tanker-arrives-uk-customisation-work/

[Colin Irvine]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:35:21 +0100 (CET), "Worst Case"@dizum.com
wrote:
>

>I should take the opportunity to explain, as well, that I owe a debt
>to USENET for its steadfast ability to expand my consciousness.

You and me both.

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 29/01/2024 11:53, Ace wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
> <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>> Tugs were used to move the ship away from its berth.
>
> Where did you get that information from? Only there are no signs of
> tugs in the water anywhere near, there's no sign of water turbulence
> they would have generated, which would normally be quite significant
> when a ship is towed out sideways.

<https://www.navylookout.com/a-naval-accident-in-context-royal-navy-minehunters-collide-in-bahrain/>

>> Looks like it had
>> just been lined-up to move off when the engines went into reverse.
>
> It's not at all where I would expect it to be if tugs had been used.
> And I'm not at allconvinced they would need tugs anyway, small[1]
> light, highly manouvrerable with bow thrusters, an open sea exit and
> no close neighbours on the quay.
>
>> It's not clear why full (or significant) power seems to be being used so
>> close to the dockside. I can only assume the captain started off under
>> 'slow ahead' (or whatever it is these days), realised he was going
>> backwards, thought the wind had caught the ship and so ordered more power.
>
> That does seem almost feasible, but I still cannot imagine a 'wiring
> fault' suddenly appearing just at that moment.

The point being the wiring fault was there all along but no one realised
because the engines weren't used until the tugs had pulled the ship
clear of the quay.

(In case you missed it, the ship had been in for an engine refurbishment
so this, I assume, was the first time they had been used following the
work.)

I think it has Diesel engines so maybe they were started in reverse by
mistake?

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

[Mike Fleming]

On 26/01/2024 20:49, Turby wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 7:21 AM, Colin Irvine wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:54:19 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:05:25 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Drake is in 'is 'ammock, and all is right wiv the world....
>>>
>>> And another WUN-ism that I don't get, and the web won't help me with
>>> :-(
>>
>> https://allpoetry.com/Drake's-Drum
>>
> Whoa! I started to read that, and my mouth opened. The words came out,
> but not with a Yankee accent. I swear it was Devonese! Bizarre. But
> beautiful.

It has suddenly plugged a gap in my knowledge. In 1066 and All That, one
of the test questions is "Cap'n, art thou sleeping there below?" with
the footnote "Do not attempt to answer this question". I always wondered
where the question came from.

[Mike Fleming]

On 26/01/2024 17:59, "Worst Case"@dizum.com wrote:

> The Spirit moves me to descant upon the sorry state of search engines.
> They used to return determinate lists, which could be shortened by
> applying various filters upon date, keywords included, keywords
> excluded, and host domains. No longer, it seems. Perhaps this is in
> response to the emerging breadth of the Web. Nowadays, in order to
> produce a foreshortened list, a search engine tries to conjure the
> best sense of the search terms given and serves the most likely hits
> from a pool of already regularly served sources.

... bearing in mind that the first priority is to get you to buy
something, or at least send you in the direction of things that may be
bought and which somebody has paid the search engine's creators to
advertise.

[Colin Irvine]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:26:21 +0000, Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk>
wrote:

Me too. It's only just dawned. Thank you!

--
Colin Irvine
R1250RS

[chrisnd @ukrm]

'+' and '-' still seem to work for searches on the bay of fleas -
however other things are desperately wrong with fleabay these days
unless you a) don't want to sell anything and actually get some money
and b) don't mind buying stuff of dubious origin from the 'far east'.

I blame the poor teaching of maths in schools these days...

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

[YTC#1]

On 30/01/2024 15:09, chrisnd @ukrm wrote:
> On 30/01/2024 01:31, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 26/01/2024 17:59, "Worst Case"@dizum.com wrote:

<snip>

>
>  '+' and '-' still seem to work for searches on the bay of fleas -
> however other things are desperately wrong with fleabay these days
> unless you a) don't want to sell anything and actually get some money
> and b) don't mind buying stuff of dubious origin from the 'far east'.
>

Avoiding buying dubious stuff from the far east is easy.
If it has a union flag on the item picture, avoid.
If it says "from UK stock", avoid.
If the sellers details show them as listed as HK or China, err avoid.


> Chris


--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

[WUN]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:08:49 AM UTC, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> The point being the wiring fault was there all along but no one realised
> because the engines weren't used until the tugs had pulled the ship
> clear of the quay.
>
> (In case you missed it, the ship had been in for an engine refurbishment
> so this, I assume, was the first time they had been used following the
> work.)
>
> I think it has Diesel engines so maybe they were started in reverse by
> mistake?

Again, from aviation, one of the vital pre-takeoff checks is "Control
movements full, free, and in the correct sense". This is particularly
vital after maintenance. It's still depressingly common for engineers
to fuck this up, and pilots not to notice. Usually it ends in a big smoking
hole in the ground, sometimes they get lucky:
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/control-check-routine-led-e190-upset-crew-to-miss-reversed-ailerons/139149.article

--
WUN

[Boots]

On 31/01/2024 02:59 WUN penned these words:

My memory maybe a bit shonky but was not the M1 crash in the 80s caused by
crossed alarm wiring? Hence the pilots shut down the working engine?
--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

[Simon Wilson]

My recollection of that was different.

<Googles>

Yeah a series of unfortunate events, but there wasn't anything crossed over.

--
/Simon

[chrisnd @ukrm]

I was thinking of that. The building I worked in at the time was one of
the sight lines for EM Airport. The army spent days searching the fields
in front and behind for bits of broken rotor blade. We could hear the
grinders cutting up the airframe for about 10 days at home - about 3
miles away. Grim.

[Ace]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:59:56 -0800 (PST), WUN <nigel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:08:49?AM UTC, Bruce Horrocks wrote:

>> I think it has Diesel engines so maybe they were started in reverse by
>> mistake?

Some large marine 2-stroke engines[1] can run in reverse, true
but that ship was originally fitted with the Napier Deltic engine,
which
a) is a four stroke and I believe therefore could not run in reverse
(where's Sweller when you need him?) and
b) would, I think, rev far higher than the propellor would want to go
and would therefore need reduction gears anyway, so any advantage of
the simplicity of a reversable engine, i.e. a direct driveshaft with
no gearing, would be lost.
But ICBW (probably am) on this.

>Again, from aviation, one of the vital pre-takeoff checks is "Control
>movements full, free, and in the correct sense".

There isn't really a sytematic pre-flight-check equivalent for ships,
but as already stated I'm very sceptical about this. All else apart,
even if the ship had been pulled off the quay by a tug they would also
have been using the engine, even if, and this is just so unlikely,
maintenance on such a vital control system had been done and never
even tested.


[1] I'm particularly remembering one we did a cylinder liner[2] change
on.
[2] Which weighed three tons IIRC[3], and the bore was large enough to
stand up in.
[3] I do recall it mainly because the liner beinf lifted out using one
of the deck cranes managed to slip its fastening and dropped six
inches or so onto the Second Engineer's foot. Great advert for
Totector boots, standard issue, but did actually manage to squash his
toes just a little but, no actual injury though.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

[Alan Lee]

On 02/02/2024 09:48, Ace wrote:
> Some large marine 2-stroke engines[1] can run in reverse, true
> but that ship was originally fitted with the Napier Deltic engine,
> which
> a) is a four stroke and I believe therefore could not run in reverse
> (where's Sweller when you need him?) and

I know this from the train world, Napier Deltic engines are two stroke
diesels.

Is any lubricant added to the fuel, or is the diesel fuel enough
lubricant? And are they similar to small petrol 2 stroke engines, but
obviously a lot bigger?

[PipL]

Not a Deltic expert, but they are 2-strokes IIRC (anyway, as an opposed
piston engine, where would you put the valves for a four-stroke?) but
not like a small bike 2-stroke - they don't use crankcase induction so
as diesels anyway (the fuel burns as it is injected), no point in adding
lube to the fuel. They must use forced induction of some sort. The oil
would be pump fed the other side of the piston skirts, I think, where
the cranks, conrods etc. are.

In fact, using conventional 2T lube techniques on a diesel would be a
bad idea - the residual oil could ignite and cause the engine to run-on
even when the fuel injection was cut off.

A swift Google says that they are uniflow engines: exhaust ports opened
by one piston and transfers by the piston the at the other end of the
cylinder. Which rings a faint bell: ISTR that the piston timing is
pretty carefully arranged so that the the exhausts open and close first,
or something like that.

--

CHUMP #1 (CHarge Up Muppet)

Pip

[GeoffC]

PipL wrote:

>
> Not a Deltic expert, but they are 2-strokes IIRC (anyway, as an
> opposed piston engine, where would you put the valves for a
> four-stroke?) but not like a small bike 2-stroke - they don't use
> crankcase induction so as diesels anyway (the fuel burns as it is
> injected), no point in adding lube to the fuel. They must use forced
> induction of some sort. The oil would be pump fed the other side of
> the piston skirts, I think, where the cranks, conrods etc. are.

2-stroke diesels have valves like a 4 stroke and some kind of forced
induction so that while both valves are open the incoming air scavenges
the exhaust. Detroit diesels use a roots blower and sound great. That
typical soundtrack as the hero climbs aboard the Greyhound bus and
departs into the sunset.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lqCSExXX60M

>
> In fact, using conventional 2T lube techniques on a diesel would be a
> bad idea - the residual oil could ignite and cause the engine to
> run-on even when the fuel injection was cut off.

I think they use conventional pressure lubrication. I once delivered
lubricating oil to a ship in Rotterdam. About 700L I think. When I
asked if it was time for an oil change, I was told no, they never
change the oil just keep topping up when it gets low.

>
> A swift Google says that they are uniflow engines: exhaust ports
> opened by one piston and transfers by the piston the at the other end
> of the cylinder. Which rings a faint bell: ISTR that the piston
> timing is pretty carefully arranged so that the the exhausts open and
> close first, or something like that.

The Commer "Knocker" TS3 had opposed pistons and indeed one piston
opens the exhaust port and the other piston does the intake, so no
transfers, also with a Roots blower for scavenging.

https://www.sa.hillman.org.au/TS3.htm






--

Geoff
NTV650