M/S "Viking Sky" Looses Propulsion Off Norway In Bad Weather

Diesel electric with four Mans running two electric motors according to Wikipedia.

These are most likely a diesel electric pod propulsion system. The MAN engines are medium speed generators that share propulsion and hotel loads.

It could be a switchboard or electrical fault as much as anything, but this is just speculating at this stage.

Ok - at the risk of being called a "cynic". . .
Two 737 Max's auger into the ground because automation failed
El Faro lost propulsion due to automation shut-down of ME due to loss of lube oil pressure
Tesla vehicles in "self-driving" involved in collisions. . .

Me thinks having too much automation is our doom. With the caveat that I'm not a marine engineer, just a lowly deck officer - retired (LOL), I find a common thread here. And in the case of the cruise ship, to loose propulsion on 4 ME's???? Something ain't right!

The short answer is greed. If they sail, they collect revenue. If they don't sail, then they don't collect any revenue. It's a simple equation; does the risk outweigh the financial upside? It oftentimes does not, so they sail.

[QUOTE="Seasmaster, post: 272396, member: 48449"
El Faro lost propulsion due to automation shut-down of ME due to loss of lube oil pressure
[/QUOTE]

El Faro lost propulsion because they didn’t have enough oil in the tank for the condition. Yes the engine shut down because the system sensed a loss of lube pressure but if it had not the engine would have shut down anyway. Permanently

Human error not automation issue

She is now safe in the beautiful port of Molde...

Specifically, if they leave port, even if they can't go to the planned destination, they still collect full revenue, so huge incentive to start the cruise.

Due to the storm in that area the Saturday departure of the Hurtigruten ship from Trondheim to Bergen was canceled. The captain decided to stay in port and the passengers were flown to Bergen.

Finally a captain with backbone.
He's probably unemployed next week but he has backbone.

Not entirely correct: So far nobody knows why the last MAX crashed, But IF it was the same reason as the Lion Air crash last year, it was probably because they crew forgot to follow the check list for runaway stabilizer trim:
2 switches on the pedestal will disconnect the Stab, then the pilots trim manually, come back and land the plane, go to the hotel and have a beer.
Pretty easy really, don’t let the plane fly you into the ground, do something..

Yeah, a good decision, but he won’t lose his job, especially now with the near disaster on the same piece of ocean: He will get a bonus.

The 737 MAX problem is only partly due to failure of the automation.... but more, significantly, due to failures in training.

As that situation continues to unfold I have a strong feeling we're going to see a lot of it came down to how people (pilots, trainers, Boeing staff, and the FAA) mishandled the systems more than how the systems mishandled the aircraft.

Now, back to propulsionless ships...

Speculation on a ship’s forum on why the cruise ship lost power:
Very short time at shore between Voyages, not enough time to properly clean
tanks and filters, etc.
(No idea if this is valid or not, my time in the engine rooms was on ships from the 70’s with multiple parallel systems and I as the oilers had daily duties cleaning fuel and lube oil separators while a parallel system was operating when we were underway, sometimes 3 weeks running non-stop between ports)

I would imagine that just us they have redundant filters...

Could be the rough seas stirred up the contamination in the fuel tanks, which may have still included debris from construction if the entire system was not properly cleaned.

I am with you though on the automation side - the Integrated Ship Platform Management System has its ‘hands” on everything.

Yes, but then, What Happened?

Perhaps the engineer or crew weren't paying attention and ran the day tank out of fuel! Who knows at this point. I would tend to guess it was either fuel or a common electrical issue.

Man, that would be far out: This boat was built 2 years ago and should have the latest of automated systems, warning systems as well as trained officers and crew.

Yes, and the latest automated systems are the worst ones because they're so complex. I was running a yacht that had everything and all of the systems running on a Boening system. It was a lot of trouble and a lot of alarms for the first several months.

I know we're talking boats here, but the airplane thing is my wheel house (pun intended) and I'm a little sensitive to bad information. So I'll throw this out there, not to start a discussion, just to make sure what has been said so far can be evaluated against the facts:

1:The 737 is a type certificate that dates back to the pleistocene and rather than starting from scratch at some point Boeing has stretched and upgraded systems and engines over and over again, to wit: 737-200 then with bigger better engines the:300/500/600 Then the NG (New Generation) 700/800/900 then the Max....8/9/10 (I may have missed one, been off the thing since 2003)

2: The Max's bigger and better engine ran out of room under the wing and was placed forward and up. This negatively changed the flying characteristics of the airplane to the point where further "pilot proofing" was necessary. A system was put in (MCAS) to force the airplane's nose down if you inadvertently ended up in a part of the envelope where you shouldn't be to begin with.

3: They really didn't make too big a deal out of it in the manual, or the training. (Airline training is derived from the Boeing instruction manual.) Pilots were trained in a runaway stabilizer but not specifically in an MCAS gone mad. Stopping an MCAS is NOT possible with some intuitive reactions which work for other things. It requires VERY specific recognition and action...... Prior to the LIONAir 737 pilots were NOT aware of the quirks and shortcomings of the system. After the first crash urgent bulletins came out very quickly.

4: MCAS, it turns out, makes decisions on ONE angle of attack vane.(a flappy thing on the outside of the airplane that measures angle of air flow)... not both. A disagreement between the two will not be detected. "Software updates" are in the making.

5: An MCAS gone mad does some VERY heinous things that if not recognized (See point 3) can put the airplane in a position from which pilots can NOT recover.

Having said all that..... Even though a LOT of things are pointing in this direction, the investigations are NOT completed. Having said that, IF the suspicions are correct, there is a LOT of culpability with Boeing.

And yes, automation is increasingly a factor. Partly because modern airplanes cannot perform the way they do without (your BMW M5 versus your 1976 Chevy Nova) And partly because we've run out of 30 year old pilots with 40 years of experience.

I have three and a half left.... I will be seen at an airport only when I need to go overseas, or some urgent domestic matter. Otherwise look for me in my motorhome or my boat. It's been a good run, I won't miss it too much knowing what it has become and will further evolve into. But, every generation says that.

Back to boats that lose all power because the XYUZ system had a Maalox moment.