HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@prodplan.Columbia.NCR.COM (Scott Bridges)
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:34:30 GMT

In article <1is3suINNiu2@calvin.NYU.EDU> roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>timothy@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy John Gale) writes:
>>1. What do you think can be done about tankers to make them 
>>   less-prone to spills?
>
>	The environmentalist in me says that you should do everything
>possible, but the engineer in me realizes that some things, while possible,
>just aren't practical. 

....and the businessman in me says that some things just aren't worth the
cost involved.  I fully understand the necessity of keeping the environment
clean, but you reach a point where to minimize the risk it becomes too
expensive to do.  The only alternative would be to not ship oil on the open
ocean.  Is any of us willing to live with the results of that?  I doubt it.
By all means, let's make things as safe as we can.  But spills will happen
as long as we ship oil over the ocean.

    
>use double-hull ships, which I understand is already in the works.  I think
>I read that Amoco (or was it Exxon, or both?) has announced that they will
>no longer commission the building of any single hull tankers.  That's
>certainly a start.  Now we just need to retrofit (if possible) existing
>ships with second hulls, or retire them if that's not possible, or turn them
>over to some other, less dangerous, use.
>
>	The second thing I would say is not to use single-screw ships.  My
>understanding of the recent North Sea disaster is that the ship had only a
>single screw/engine.  Anytime you have a single point of failure, you are
>asking for trouble.  Possibly the second engine wouldn't have been
>sufficient to make headway against the wind/waves, but it probably would
>have been enough to keep the anchor(s) from dragging, or at least given them
>more time to get a tow there/attached.  Of course, if the cause of the
>engine loss was fuel contamination, a twin-screw ship might have very well
>lost both engines if they had a common fuel supply.
>--

It sounds like they need more than duplicate engines.  It sounds like they need
anything having to do with propulsion to have a backup (i.e., engine, prop,
fuel, steering, etc).

 
>Roy Smith <roy@nyu.edu>
>Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
>NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
>"This never happened to Bart Simpson."


Scott Bridges

-- 
Scott Bridges                               Phone (803) 791-6387
NCR Corp-MCPD Columbia                      Fax (803) 739-7362
3325 Platt Springs Rd                       scott@prodcntr.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
West Columbia, SC 29170
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: kell@mprgate.mpr.ca (Dave Kell)
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Reply-To: kell@mprgate.mpr.ca (Dave Kell)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 20:25:26 GMT

In article <ZPOPE.93Jan7143856@sloop.osf.org>, zpope@osf.org (William Pope) writes:
|> 
|> In this case the ship had lost engine power.  The crew was already off by
|> the time the ship hit the rocks.  I don't have charts of the area but from
|> what I've understood so far the ship was in a channel 22 miles wide between
|> the Shetlands and Scotland in some very nasty weather.  Don't know how or
|> why it lost power.  
|> 

One report I heard said that they got sea water in the fuel lines.  I
don't know how they managed that.  I would have thought that a competent
engine room crew could handle this type of problem pretty efficiently.

The ship was en route to Canada from the North Sea.  Her route took her 
between the northern Scottish coast and the Shetland Islands.

It seems quite poor judgement to take the ship through this channel in
force 12 conditions, when a relatively short detour around the north
end of the Shetlands would have kept her away from any lee shore.

Her sistership was detained yesterday in Quebec and there were some comments
that the crew appeared to be rather poorly trained.

dK
===========================================================================
Dave Kell   (604) 293-5753                 kell@mowgli.mpr.ca
MPR Teltech Ltd.                           mprgate.mpr.ca!kell@uunet.uu.net
8999 Nelson Way
Burnaby, BC, CANADA
V5A 4B5
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: whoward@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (Will Howard)
Subject: Re: inverter and battery use
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:15:43 GMT

In article <1hvt3tINNc45@shelley.u.washington.edu>
kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante) writes:
>You want to know how long your batteries are good for?  Turn on
>
>everything on the boat, look at your watch, and then look at it
>
>again when the batteries are dead.  Then you'll know.

'till you hear a voice from below-decks saying: "Captain, my batteries cannah
take much more o'this! The crystals aren't pure enough! I cannah defy the laws
of physics!" And you know you'll have to drink that cup of instant coffee cold.

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: nstern@cass.ma02.bull.com (Neil Stern)
Subject: Re: Downside of sailboat sitting on bottom??
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:40:55 GMT

wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) writes:

>In article <11624@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, nall@ibm12.scri.fsu.edu (John Nall)
>wrote:
>> 
>> Before I make the final plunge, does anyone have any thoughts on this?
>> Any advice appreciated, especially from those who have actual experience
>> with keeping boats in very shallow water.  (But theory appreciated, too).
>> -- 
>> John W. Nall              | Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
>> nall@mailer.scri.fsu.edu  | Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
>>   "Why yes, as a matter of fact, I DID vote for Hillary!!" - me

>It sounds like what you really need is a boat with bilge keels (two short
>keels).  This type of boat can sit on the bottom without the embarrasment
>of falling over on its sides and smashing its rigging on the dock.  The
>December issue of Cruising World had an article about a boat of this type. 
>The downside is that these boats are pretty rare, especially in the U.S. 
>I'm no sailboat expert.  Does anybody out there know of any bilge keel
>boats in the U.S.?  The one in the article was a British Caprice class
>sloop of only 18 feet.

>----------
>Bill Walker - WWalker@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA
>All opinions expressed are mine, and do not reflect those of my employer.
>"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare

I have such a boat!  My sailboat is a 22' Westerly Nomad sloop. (1970)
This has a bilge keel, 2 keels on either side (100 lb. each) and a 
skeg heel (thru which you could mount an inboard dive shaft and prop,
I have an outboard) which is 1050 lb. of ballast.  As suggested by Bill,
it's a British boat, and I haven't seen very many of them in the U.S.
The gentleman who I purchased the boat from, (a Brit), explained that
this boat is most suitable to the North Sea, and that in Britain there
aren't as many traditional marinas like we see in the U.S. (with slips).
So lots of people beach their boats.  All you need to do is anchor in
shallow water, or at a beach at high tide and when the tide recedes, 
the boat just sits on the keels.  Pretty neat!  I personally have a slip
in Dorchester Bay (Boston harbor, Mass. Bay) but I do appreciate the
2'3" draft in the local waters.

This is a fine, comfortable, seaworthy boat, with lots of space (enclosed
head, 4 berths, sink, water tank, stove, etc), however, it is not
for anyone who wants to get somewhere fast.  Also, the twin-keel
configuration makes the boat cumbersome to maneouver, especially in 
light winds.  You really have to time a tack pretty well the get the boat
to come around smoothly.

By the way, if anyone out there has one of these (or similar), I'd like to
hear about it!

Good luck!

 -- Neil Stern --
-- 
Neil Stern, U.S. Marketing, Technical Sales Support, Open Systems 
Bull HN Worldwide Information Systems
Billerica, Massachusetts USA
Phone: (508)-294-3029   Fax:   (508)-294-5328   Email: N.Stern@ma02.bull.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:25:39 GMT

In <19490.2b48983b@ecs.umass.edu> jhwelch@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>How about requiring the boats to be self contained for the duration
>of one series?  Only the crew would be allowed on and off.  You'd
>have to either stock up on spare parts or design a boat that
>didn't require them.

How about reimposing the requirement that all vessels travel to
the race course on their own bottoms?  That would mean a real
need for seaworthiness, and focus R&D on innovations more useful
to *real* sailboats. :-)
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 01:27:56 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Sandra Distefano writes:

	The Coast Guard can board you whenever they want in US coastal 
	waters. They have special rights which police, FBI don't have.  
	They don't need "probable cause". They can stop and search you 
	because they want to search for drugs or safety violations.

Does the Coast Guard Auxiliary have the same privileges? Also, in case
harbors have been put in place by the County, then the Sherriff seems to
have jurisdiction. In other words, it seems as though the CG only has
jurisdiction in areas not under County control. Newport Beach and Dana 
Harbor were certainly under County Sherriff's control, and the CG only
seemed to visit as "guests", although I'm sure they must have had some
search rights, perhaps in "hot pursuit".

FM
FELIX
Port of Redwood City
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: steph@cs.uchicago.edu (Stephen Wilson Bailey)
Subject: Re: Downside of sailboat sitting on bottom??
Followup-To: rec.boats
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:15:00 GMT

We kept a Kells 23 (a centerboard sloop) on a tidal mud flat similar
to what you describe (dry 3 hours each side of low tide) for a few
years with no problems.

This setup actually has the advantage that if your boat leaks (which the
Kells didn't but our subsequent, aluminum craft did), it won't sink
:^)

It's handy to have a nearby, temporary anchorage in deep water so you
can move your boat there if you want to sail at some time other than
is permitted by the tide.

Steph


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Reply-To: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk (OBSchou)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 11:23:16 GMT

In article <1is3suINNiu2@calvin.NYU.EDU> roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>timothy@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy John Gale) writes:
>>1. What do you think can be done about tankers to make them 
>>   less-prone to spills?
>
>	The environmentalist in me says that you should do everything
>possible, but the engineer in me realizes that some things, while possible,
>just aren't practical.  However, the biggest thing I can think of is to only
>use double-hull ships, which I understand is already in the works.  I think
>I read that Amoco (or was it Exxon, or both?) has announced that they will
>no longer commission the building of any single hull tankers.  That's
>certainly a start.  Now we just need to retrofit (if possible) existing
>ships with second hulls, or retire them if that's not possible, or turn them
>over to some other, less dangerous, use.


Yes, in a way.  However, if a ship hits a rock in heavy seas, the
double hull will also be likely to leak.  The tanker in the Shetlands
is taking one heck of a hammering.  I am not a Naval engineer, but I
suspect even if it were a double hulled ship it would still break up.

>
>	The second thing I would say is not to use single-screw ships.  My
>understanding of the recent North Sea disaster is that the ship had only a
>single screw/engine.  Anytime you have a single point of failure, you are
>asking for trouble.  Possibly the second engine wouldn't have been
>sufficient to make headway against the wind/waves, but it probably would
>have been enough to keep the anchor(s) from dragging, or at least given them
>more time to get a tow there/attached.  Of course, if the cause of the
>engine loss was fuel contamination, a twin-screw ship might have very well
>lost both engines if they had a common fuel supply.

Much more sensible - but with twin fuel supply systems.  These tankers
apparently use the crude as their fuel, cleaning out all the unwanted
water, gasses and other gunk as needed.  They have two streams for
generating fuel, one in use filling tomorrows fuel tanks, one not in
use, with todays fuel tank. (This I have been told by a former merchant
navy engineer - I take his word for it)

If one engine failed, the second would help, maybe even headway in such
heavy seas.

An enging failure out at sea would be a lot less serious.  If the Braer
(?sp?) had steamed another hour, this accident would not have been.

>-- 
>Roy Smith <roy@nyu.edu>
>Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
>NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
>"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
From: billc@sextant.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Courington)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:51:46 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: sextant

In article <1993Jan7.104248.62524@cc.usu.edu> hal@kaos.declab.usu.edu (000200 Lynch) writes:

>I give.  Whats slatting?

In no wind and a swell, the boat gets sideways to the 
waves.  On each wave the boat rolls and the boom slams first to one side, then 
the other; you can't crank the mainsheet down tight enough 
to stop the boom.  Roll, wham!, shudder, roll, wham!, shudder, 
etc.  The noise makes it impossible for anyone to sleep, 
if you're on watch, the dew drops from the main onto 
your head.  You secretly fear that somehow your opponent has 
found a little breeze.  As the sun rises, you scan the glassy 
rolling surface for a catspaw,
hoping it will come your way, and that further, it means 
the Westerly is finally setting in.  It usually doesn't, 
or the breeze will come up for an hour (often off the land), 
then die again, returning you to your misery. 
It's miserable stuff, like the Doldrums, I expect, 
but, mercifully, with less heat and humidity.  

BILL
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Subject: BOAT/US and rec.boats
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 21:17:06 GMT
Keywords: Internet connection available?

Fellow netters,
Having just received the BOAT/US Reports in the snail mail, the thought occurred
to me that BOAT/US should directly participate in the rec.boats newsgroup.
If this subject has already been discussed and dismissed, I apologize.  If not, and
others feel that BOAT/US should at least monitor rec.boats via internet (or some
other means), I would be happy to raise this point with them in person when I 
visit the New Yawk Boat Show next weekend.  
-- 
Jack (John) Adams			| Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}			| (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com			| kahuna@attmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Followup-To: rec.boats
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:11:13 GMT

In article <1iao6tINNql@morrow.stanford.edu>, francis@oas.stanford.edu
(Francis Muir) wrote:
> 
> Sandra Distefano writes:
> 
> 	The Coast Guard can board you whenever they want in US coastal 
> 	waters. They have special rights which police, FBI don't have.  
> 	They don't need "probable cause". They can stop and search you 
> 	because they want to search for drugs or safety violations.
> 
> Does the Coast Guard Auxiliary have the same privileges? Also, in case
> harbors have been put in place by the County, then the Sherriff seems to
> have jurisdiction. In other words, it seems as though the CG only has
> jurisdiction in areas not under County control. Newport Beach and Dana 
> Harbor were certainly under County Sherriff's control, and the CG only
> seemed to visit as "guests", although I'm sure they must have had some
> search rights, perhaps in "hot pursuit".
> 
> FM
> FELIX
> Port of Redwood City

Other folks have already answered the question of the CG Aux.  Re
jurisdiction, I know that I've seen both Sheriff and CG boats patrolling in
the Sacramento Delta.  My guess would be that the Sheriff deals with crimes
not related to operation of the vessel (e.g., theft of a vessel or
equipment, or theft using a vessel), and that the CG deals only with issues
pertaining to vessel operation.  Just a guess, of course, and even if it's
right for the Delta, it may be wrong for other locations.

----------
Bill Walker - WWalker@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA
All opinions expressed are mine, and do not reflect those of my employer.
"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: will@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (William Sadler)
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:45:23 GMT

In <1ia6e5INNnmb@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes) writes:


>I propose a rec.boats project: let's redesign the AC. I propose a few more
>alterations (which others should feel free to reject). 

How about instead of AC boats they just spend the same amount of money
an buy Lasers.  Let's see... that's about 2000 Lasers per country give
or take a few hundred.  Then have one big regatta with all of these
boats.  The country with the lowest points wins!  I can just see it...
4000 Lasers on the starting line
--
***************************************************************************
*   _______________\|/_      Will Sadler     will@cica.indiana.edu        * 
*   Laser 44888    /|\                       sadler@iubacs.bitnet         *     
***************************************************************************
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:07 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1ihsv1INNo0s@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, youngqud@ucs.orst.edu (Dean Youngquist) writes...
>Regarding the recent grounding of a large oil tanker in (I think) the 
>Shetland Islands, how is it possible for a ship to be driven onto the rocks ?

As I recall from the TV news, in heavy weather water somehow got into the fuel,
which stopped the engines, and the crew couldn't fix them quickly enough.
A tug captain who arrived in time to prevent the vessel going aground found
that the crew had already abandoned ship and there was no-one to take his line.

I guess no-one believes in this 'down with the ship' stuff anymore, at least
not to save mere cargo, but one might wonder if a few more risks taken by
the crew in trying to fix the engines or wait for a tug might have averted
such a disaster (and peoples lives are at risk during any salvage or cleanup
effort, too).

In other situations of severe consequences (such as the nuclear power industry)
risk analysis is performed so that several unlikely things have to happen
simultaneosly (loss of coolant, breach in containment vessel, failure of 
secondary coolant) for anything terrible to happen. It seems to me that in this
situation, given the vessels position in the channel, and the severe weather,
that only one unlikely thing (engine failure) had to happen for a bad spill to
be inevitable. I suggest that this is not good enough; the tanker should have 
avoided the channel in bad weather.

--
 Andrew Daviel, Vancouver, Canada
From: tarkkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lauri Tarkkonen)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:24:28 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1993Jan5.202539.9503@Happy-Man.com> josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam) writes:

>In <19490.2b48983b@ecs.umass.edu> jhwelch@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>How about reimposing the requirement that all vessels travel to
>the race course on their own bottoms?  That would mean a real
>need for seaworthiness, and focus R&D on innovations more useful
>to *real* sailboats. :-)

As far the series are held in San Diego, the American would interpret
the rules so that their boat must be able to sail to the race course
from San Diego and the Europeans must sail over the pond. Then the
races will be anyway light wind round the buoys, easisly won by the 
light wind flyer. (Remember the lopsided cat monohull series). :-).

- Lauri Tarkkonen
From: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: inverter and battery use
Date: 4 Jan 93 11:45:05 GMT
Reply-To: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD

About this battery stuff... one thing I haven't seen mentioned:  When it
comes time to recharge those batteries, be prepared for a long charging
period unless you've got a industrial strength alternator. :-)  I've got a
600 W microwave and a lot of the other goodies (1200 W hairdriers are neat).
It can keep my 165 amp alternator busy for quite a while. 'Cause except
for the initial few minutes, not many batteries take that rate of charge
for long.  My batteries generally start charging at 140 to 150 amps, then
the rate falls off to about 110 to 120 for a good period and then on down
as the batteries top off.  So batteries the size you've got will take
several hours charging-- another good reason to conserve.

BTW, the microwave takes exactly 100 amps.  Great for warming that cold
cup of coffee though. :-)

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil
From: pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:29:50 GMT
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

In article <timothy.726718273@tasman>, timothy@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy John Gale) writes:
> 
> 1. What do you think can be done about tankers to make them 
>    less-prone to spills?
> 
  The primary thing that has been talked about repeatedly is a requirement for
  double hulls, though that may have not done much good in the Shetland 
  disaster.

  In general, I believe that the transportation of oil should be considered
  to be in the same category as transportation of hazardous substances - tho
  perhaps not quite as extreme.  E.g., vessels must have appropriate backup 
  systems, crews must undergo special/supplementary training, and route selec-
  tion must adhere to very conservative guidelines to absolutely minimize the
  chance of accidents.

  Yes, these would increase the cost of oil.  I do not have anywhere near 
  enough knowledge or data to calculate how much, but I am willing to bet that
  such measures should not increase the cost of a barrel of oil by more than
  5% or so, given the volume that these ships carry.



  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org
  
Newsgroups: rec.boats