Mixing Alcohol & Diesel?

And who exactly is the "chief engineer"? It is NOT C4ENG. He was just a guy who saw something that he thought wasn't such a smart idea. He did inform his captain and checked with MTU, but maybe he just wasn't as brilliant as you. Get your facts straight before you jump on the high horse Marmot. Read the words written, not the ones you imagine.

"C4ENG said that he was 'helping out.... with some ... work.' He was not the engineer or even in charge of the work being done from what I read. He certainly was not the vessel's engineer. In fact he was not even a member of the vessel's crew."

That is irrelevant. Your attempt to negate his role this way is just blowing smoke. Judging by past posts, C4ENG holds a license as an engineer and has a higher responsiblilty than a dayworker hired to help clean bilges in this circumstance.

"He saw an act that he felt was foolish, not illegal or blatantly unsafe."

He should have known it was unsafe and illegal. That knowledge is part of what being a chief engineer is about.

"Even after all this discussion I'm not sure if this is a safety concern, a mechanical concern or a warranty concern."

No comment.

"I know I wouldn't do it on a boat I was responsible for, but I doubt I'd go running down the dock screaming "fire". I certainly wouldn't screw with someone's job without knowing what I was talking about."

I am glad to hear you wouldn't run down the dock screaming "fire." But tell us, what would you do?

The point I have been trying to make is that an ignorant captain created an unsafe condition onboard a vessel in the shipyard and a licensed engineer witnessed it. The engineer had a responsibility to prevent it but since for various reasons was unable, he had a responsibility to manage the situation after it occurred.

This isn't screwing with someone's job or crying fire, it is a professional acting professionally when another hasn't. Without reference to the work being performed on the vessel or the gas free conditions existing at the time of the incident, creating an explosion or fire hazard and not informing the yard is a large problem in itself. The actions of the captain were not related to the operation of the vessel, they were a lazy man's answer to the minor inconvenience of taking the waste ashore for proper disposal. It created a dangerous condition that continues to claim the lives of crew and yard workers all over the world.

I agree with what you say, but if you look at the posts in this thread you'll find that you are the only one who knows without a doubt that this created a dangerous situation; including the people at MTU. I was the first one to point out the potential for danger when I read that the tanks were empty.(Post #8) All of us (except that captain involved) know it was a stupid thing to do. We're trying to learn how stupid. Back up my friend before firing both barrels and demeaning someone's qualifications. The reason I'm a 100 GT Master is because that is what I want to be. I happen to be very good at my job and do a lot of good in my little pond. We don't all aspire to be chief engineer on Octapusy or A, but I'll match any unlimited master at maneuvering a 50 footer in close quarters or at teaching a new boater how to get his boat into a slip, and I may even impart some knowledge learned through 50 years on the water that could keep his family alive one day. But yes, I am just a small boat captain who is still learning, but I take my responsibilities seriously. If I don't meet up to your requirements it's OK. I know of a couple thousand people who are satisfied with me.

NYCAP123.... I have a question. Should we send C4ENG walking the plank or just have him keel-hauled at your behest for admitting he's a rat? LOL

I believe that C4ENG took exactly the right action. He admitted that he didn't know everything, got advice on what he didn't know and brought the matter to the attention of a person better able to decide what if any action needed to be taken. Way different than what you were suggesting.

Please show me the error of my ways there..... I suggested he bring it to someones attention period. I gave several options be it the captain, owner, or the dockmaster! Which was the wrong suggestion there? Based on your previous responses it would have been "all of the above" until MARMOT posted...... so as you suggested to MARMOT read what was posted.

My joke was based on several of your responses.... Jeez.... C4ENG and I have had additional communication and I beleve we both understand the situation and each point of view much better now. So are you ready to make light of this yet?

Strat57,
"can you post your name and the company you work for so we can "steer clear" of your services?" This is what put me on you. I don't like bullies, even cyber ones. If you've squared with C4ENG I assume that I took that statement more seriously than it was meant. We're all here to learn, help and enjoy conversation with others in our industry or who share our passion. This thread has gotten a bit heated and unnecessarily so. I apologize for taking you to task my friend.

“I agree with what you say, but if you look at the posts in this thread you'll find that you are the only one who knows without a doubt that this created a dangerous situation; including the people at MTU.”

Glad you agree. Like I wrote earlier, it is a shame so few here know that introducing a highly volatile, low flashpoint liquid into an empty tank creates an explosion hazard. As far as MTU is concerned, what do you expect them to say? They can’t say adding alcohol to diesel fuel will have no effect, and are not in the business of determining safety shipboard practices unrelated to their engines.

“ Back up my friend before firing both barrels and demeaning someone's qualifications. The reason I'm a 100 GT Master is because that is what I want to be.”

Good for you and I am glad you are good at what you do. I didn’t demean your qualifications, I ridiculed your suggestion that anyone who questions a captain should swim. I stand by my position that people with the attitude you promote have been reading too many Patrick O’brian novels. Yours is an 18th century position which is the foundation of a long list of disasters and maritime losses. The modern vessel and its crew have progressed far beyond such thinking and the safety record of seafaring reflects that progress. Keep up the good work but please, don’t post such inane comments and expect professional mariners to respect them.

You may indeed be highly qualified for the role you fill. However, your statements indicate a complete lack of understanding of how the crew of a large vessel must interact. The crew of a modern yacht is often larger than that of a containership or tanker and operates nearly constantly in conditions most merchant ships only see at the beginning and end of a passage. That requires a culture of crew coordination that those who operate small vessels with a crew of 2 or 3 do not experience.

Once again Marmot you are imagining words that suit your desire to bully and spout off. You seem to have missed: "My personal policy, which I announce to my hands, is that I welcome second guessing "

"... you are imagining words that suit your desire to bully and spout off. You seem to have missed: "My personal policy, which I announce to my hands, is that I welcome second guessing "

Read it loud and clear, as well as the following which you seem to have forgotten to repost.

"Who would C4ENG think he is telling a captain of a vessel how to do his job."

He should be thinking he is the one person onboard who is responsible to make decisions about what goes in fuel tanks.

"He doesn't know if maybe the owner of the boat (who maybe is the chief engineer for the engine manufacturer) told him to do this."

See above. Additionally, if the owner tells the captain to perform an illegal or unsafe act it does not relieve anyone of the responsibility for taking that action.

"On top of that you've seen some very smart people here unsure of if or how much if any damage is being done. So basically he'd be talking through his hat."

Damage is a downstream consequence, the immediate threat is the creation of a hazard and a violation of hazmat rules among others.

"And you further suggest that he should rat the captain out to the boat's owner or the dockmaster over something that may or may not even be a problem? If he tried that with me going for a swim and having his career ended would be the least of his troubles."

That my friend is precisely why I am happy thinking like that id being relegated to the part of this industry where it impacts the fewest people, hopefully it will continue to fade away with time.

"The captain is in command of a vessel. Period. The owner can fire him, but until that happens the captain is in command. He does what he does and accepts the consequences."

See the above. If the captain were the only person to "accept" the consequences that might be OK, unfortunately far too many other people suffer the consequences of the poor training, incompetence, stupidity, and blind arrogance behind the management position you describe. It has no place in this industry.

I recommend taking a BRM course if you want to find out how things have changed since Trafalgar. Bon voyage, captain.

"He should be thinking he is the one person onboard who is responsible to make decisions about what goes in fuel tanks."
No, that would be the adult captain doing the act or the engineer who works for that captain and the current owner of the vessel.

"if the owner tells the captain to perform an illegal or unsafe act it does not relieve anyone of the responsibility for taking that action."
Obviously you missed the fact that he (not being as smart as you) didn't even consider the act to be dangerous or illegal. He thought it may hurt the machinery.

"Damage is a downstream consequence, the immediate threat is the creation of a hazard and a violation of hazmat rules among others."
I agree completely as I mentioned in post #8

"That my friend is precisely why I am happy thinking like that id being relegated to the part of this industry where it impacts the fewest people, hopefully it will continue to fade away with time."(referring to taking someone to task for anonymously ratting a person out like a schoolyard tattletale in stead of confronting them face to face like a man.)
A weasel is a weasel and is dealt with like a weasel. If you consider that 18th century thinking that's fine by me. You might want to stay in your room though, because there are a lot of people in the 21st century that you really don't want to deal with.

"If the captain were the only person to "accept" the consequences that might be OK, unfortunately far too many other people suffer the consequences of the poor training, incompetence, stupidity, and blind arrogance behind the management position you describe. It has no place in this industry."
Is that not what I said when I wrote: "My personal policy, which I announce to my hands, is that I welcome second guessing "
I'm just not arrogant enough to think that the world not only should, but does live by my standards.

It's a shame that you stayed up all night and that was the best you could come up with. Maybe you should just stop trying to start fights were none exist for a change. Even you may find there is more to be learned.

This thread has served out its useful purpose. I think that YF would do well to close it at this time unless someone can think of anything productive that hasn't been covered. Bon Voyage Marmot.

Maybe I'm off base here but requesting this thread to be closed is rather premature wouldn't you say NYCAP123? No one has really addressed the laws regarding disposal of hazardous materials in such a manner nor have they addressed just what stance the USCG might have from a safety stand point.

Based on your own observation quoted above.... I'll agree there is much more to be "learned" regarding this particular situation and preventing future lapses in judgment.

As far as my statement regarding C4ENG listing his name and company.... the point was to get those who aspire to or currently work in the industry to realize their action or inaction can and will affect them directly along with their employer.

For example if the disposal violated EPA rules not only would the captain be held accountable but the owner of the vessel would also. Chances are the captain couldn't afford to pay large fines while the owner would be expected to.

As far as the STCW-95 course..... taking one is not a bad idea. Like any profession, taking refresher courses only helps to keep yourself (read anyone interested) current regarding changes in maritime law, abreast of the latest advances in technology, etc. well.... you get the idea.

I would recommend anyone thinking of purchasing a large vessel to at least consider taking several courses including acquiring their OUPV-6, a radar certificate, MROP and both CPR and advanced life saving.

Your insurance co. will love ya for it, and it will also give an owner a much better understanding of the captain and crew he may or may not need to employ.

So close this thread? Come on now..... Let's move it forward in a constructive manner.

Hi STRAT57,
I suggested closing the thread because it had degenerated into nothing but a fight over semantics and was serving no useful purpose. I think we all knew at the start that the action was foolish, later learned that it was dangerous and possibly criminal. I would of course welcome a thread enlightening people on the use and handling of various hazardous materials. Let's start one.

"As far as my statement regarding C4ENG listing his name and company.... the point was to get those who aspire to or currently work in the industry to realize their action or inaction can and will affect them directly along with their employer.
For example if the disposal violated EPA rules not only would the captain be held accountable but the owner of the vessel would also. Chances are the captain couldn't afford to pay large fines while the owner would be expected to."
Wouldn't you agree that that is a much nicer and more productive way of putting it rather than calling for a boycote of someone's company?

I completely agree that keeping our education current is very important. I'm lucky that the number of vessels I run each year keeps me fairly up to date with electronics and systems, but there is always room for improvement. I recently ran into a captain who didn't know how to use a chartplotter or GPS. (No need to comment on that).

As to: "I would recommend anyone thinking of purchasing a large vessel to at least consider taking several courses including acquiring their OUPV-6, a radar certificate, MROP and both CPR and advanced life saving."
Although I would personally love that to be so I believe their attorneys would recommend against it as it would then subject them to a different level of liability.
So let me finish my participation in this thread by quoting your very smart statement: "Let's move it forward in a constructive manner."

Maybe, just maybe, if you happen to see someone doing something that may cause harm or damage, you ought to express those concerns. They don't have to listen, but perhaps the fact that you expressed a concern just might help them have a second thought about what they're doing. If you are wrong or they don't give it a second thought, no harm, no foul. Lord knows, none of us knows it all, and we sure don't have enough time to make all the mistakes ourselves, although I've been told that I do seem to be working on it.

Currently there are several commercial work boats (190') that visit Port Everglades and run on Biofuel. Isn't biofuel the addition of ethanol to diesel? These vessels all have CAT engines.

BioDiesel has nothing to do with ethanol! it's very similar to regular diesel and can be made from a variety of oil... Algae is the most promising source of bioD and there is a lot research going on in that field since it can be grown quickly not just in ponds but also in transparent tubes or even large bags.

sugar cane, palm oil,etc... can be used for bioD which is safe for most diesel. the only issue is that it cleans the tanks and lines so expect frequent filter change at the begining....

actually, it is possible to run many diesel of used vegie oil. some work boats do that too as well as many road cars... you just need to filter heat and warm it up a little to get it fluid enough.

Hi,

Here is what Wikipedia describes Bio Diesel as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

My new VW Passat and previous car a 2007 Audi A4 S Line have nice big stickers inside the fuel caps...... NO BIODIESEL

Both cars have the 2000 TDI Engine.

The prohibition may have more to do with the particulate filters (if) fitted to those vehicles and very little to do with the engine itself.

Just so you know that if you need to, my friend runs regular off the shelf veg oil in his Jetta all the time.

Hi,

The dealer says it is the seals in the fuel system.

My previous Passat 1.9 TDI (2003) was able to and did run ok on Bio Diesel but not the newer one