Nieuw Amsterdam Azipod Technical Discussion

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

All that said, passengers do not need to know the technical details. What's important is that LR and the insurance industry have stepped in. Should they force every azipod failure to be repaired ASAP, this will force ABB to seriously address the reliability issues. Passengers shouldn't have to undergo an entire season/year with just one pod working.

 

LR has the big picture and have access to the industry experts. None of us in this forum are azimuth/azipod experts. Please speak up if you are!!!

 

 

And yet you continue to provide links to the technical aspects of azipods.  Lloyd's and the insurance industry did not "step in", they have been involved in this from the start, and have been involved with azipods from their inception, as their design is inspected, and their construction is inspected by LR before they are given a class certificate and allowed to be used on LR classed ships.  LR and class societies give class approval to virtually every piece of equipment used to build a ship, down to certain valves in the engine room, and flooring and wall materials.  Again, the class society provides an underwriting service that the flag states and the P&I clubs use to ensure quality of shipbuilding and operation, but remember that the P&I insurance is mutual insurance, owned by the ship owners themselves, so the symbiosis does not lead to the class societies placing pressures on the ship owners, more than the ship owners are willing to accept, since they are free to choose a different class society and/or join a different P&I club.

 

While I would not characterize myself as an azipod "expert", I have operated, maintained, and repaired them, which places me in the knowledge stream that sees technical bulletins and also the "industry best practices" as set forth by the class societies and the manufacturer.

[OzCanuck]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And yet you continue to provide links to the technical aspects of azipods.  Lloyd's and the insurance industry did not "step in", they have been involved in this from the start, and have been involved with azipods from their inception, as their design is inspected, and their construction is inspected by LR before they are given a class certificate and allowed to be used on LR classed ships.  LR and class societies give class approval to virtually every piece of equipment used to build a ship, down to certain valves in the engine room, and flooring and wall materials.  Again, the class society provides an underwriting service that the flag states and the P&I clubs use to ensure quality of shipbuilding and operation, but remember that the P&I insurance is mutual insurance, owned by the ship owners themselves, so the symbiosis does not lead to the class societies placing pressures on the ship owners, more than the ship owners are willing to accept, since they are free to choose a different class society and/or join a different P&I club.

 

While I would not characterize myself as an azipod "expert", I have operated, maintained, and repaired them, which places me in the knowledge stream that sees technical bulletins and also the "industry best practices" as set forth by the class societies and the manufacturer.

You are the closest thing to an expert that I can possibly imagine in these forums, unless we get a tech from ABB to participate. 
 

No need to respond or acknowledge the drivel. 

[Seasick Sailor]

4 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

All that said, passengers do not need to know the technical details. What's important is that LR and the insurance industry have stepped in. Should they force every azipod failure to be repaired ASAP, this will force ABB to seriously address the reliability issues. Passengers shouldn't have to undergo an entire season/year with just one pod working.

 

LR has the big picture and have access to the industry experts. None of us in this forum are azimuth/azipod experts. Please speak up if you are!!!

 

 

 

Speak for yourself HIV. I am very interested in the technical details. The topic states the obvious: "Azipod Technical Discussion". I just wish people would accept the fact there are experts here that know what they are talking about, and leave the negative comments for another thread. 

[voyageur9]

1 hour ago, Seasick Sailor said:

 

Speak for yourself HIV. I am very interested in the technical details. The topic states the obvious: "Azipod Technical Discussion". I just wish people would accept the fact there are experts here that know what they are talking about, and leave the negative comments for another thread. 

Let me echo Seasick Sailor and pay particular tribute to NavArch64 who has added a useful and fascinating dimension to the entire azipod/failure/LR/insurance/regulatory discussion.

 

As always, those who aren't interested shouldn't upset themselves by returning to a specific thread full of information and civil discourse.

 

 

[Seasick Sailor]

7 minutes ago, voyageur9 said:

Let me echo Seasick Sailor and pay particular tribute to NavArch64 who has added a useful and fascinating dimension to the entire azipod/failure/LR/insurance/regulatory discussion.

 

As always, those who aren't interested shouldn't upset themselves by returning to a specific thread full of information and civil discourse.

 

 

 

Yes, thanks to NavArch64 as well as chengkp75.  I have learned a lot on your threads and please never feel discouraged by the nay sayers. 

[LocoLoco1]

23 hours ago, old mike said:

 

 

'POD Propulsion. Where is the Problem?' authored by Massimo Canepa is instructive. In a IUMI (Int'l Union of Marine Insurance) publication, Mr. Canepa succinctly spells out the issues of Pod Propulsion... with PICS!! For those inclined to learn more, I highly recommend it's reading.  It appears 'Pod' Axial Thrust bearings and Radial support bearings and their respective occillations (wobbling) and attendant wear exert unintended stresses on various components. But that's not the WHOLE story.... 

[HappyInVan]

48 minutes ago, LocoLoco1 said:

'POD Propulsion. Where is the Problem?' authored by Massimo Canepa is instructive. In a IUMI (Int'l Union of Marine Insurance) publication, Mr. Canepa succinctly spells out the issues of Pod Propulsion... with PICS!! For those inclined to learn more, I highly recommend it's reading.  It appears 'Pod' Axial Thrust bearings and Radial support bearings and their respective occillations (wobbling) and attendant wear exert unintended stresses on various components. But that's not the WHOLE story.... 

 

Thanks. Looks interesting.

[HappyInVan]

10 hours ago, Seasick Sailor said:

 

I am very interested in the technical details. The topic states the obvious: "Azipod Technical Discussion". 

 

I am in sunny Mexico and I will be brief.

 

Please enjoy the technical discussion. It is entirely over my head,

 

I am trying to focus attention on solutions. A technical understanding of the problem is educational. However, passengers like me want solutions to the reliability problem.

 

Since the technical problem is inextricably linked to the business/insurance issues, I am looking outside the box. The NA is an example of the ability of the insurance industry's ally to force a repair ASAP. HAL cannot ignore the Immediate Action flag.

 

Long live Lloyds Register.

 

Anyway, I have done my own research, and I have shared my elementary knowledge of the problem.

 

Happy cruising, may your azipod never fail. Peace. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by HappyInVan

[LocoLoco1]

Icebreaker duty and Off-shore platform work seems to be 'Pod Powers' sweet spot. But are they actually $cheaper$ for big cruiseships?? They probably will be... until they're not.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

Since the technical problem is inextricably linked to the business/insurance issues, I am looking outside the box. The NA is an example of the ability of the insurance industry's ally to force a repair ASAP. HAL cannot ignore the Immediate Action flag.

 

Long live Lloyds Register.

While I am a firm believer in the classification societies, and their ability to ensure that ships are built and maintained to safe standards, this belief that the class societies have an unconditional hold over the ship is not correct.

 

For some, this article by the IACS (International Association of Classification Societies), of which LR is a member may be interesting in its description of what a class society is, and what it does:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070119074545/http://www.eagle.org/company/Classmonograph.pdf

 

In the introduction is this statement:

 

"Such a certificate does not imply, and should not be construed as an express warranty of safety, fitness for purpose or seaworthiness of the ship. It is an attestation only that the vessel is in compliance with the standards that have been developed and published by the society issuing the classification certificate."  (emphasis is mine)

 

Further on:

 

"It should be emphasized that it is the shipowner who has total control over a vessel, including the manner in which it is operated and maintained. Classification is voluntary and its effectiveness depends upon the shipowner, and other interests, operating in good faith by disclosing to the class society any damage or deterioration that may affect the vessel’s classification status."  (again, emphasis is mine)

 

The condition of class that has been added to NA's certificate is not a hard and fast "you must comply", it is a time frame that is agreed upon between the surveyor, the society, and the shipowner, that this is a "reasonable" time frame for repair (reasonable meaning that it is achievable (parts will be available) and that it does not produce undue financial burden on the shipowner), and that if the repair is not completed at the specified time, the surveyor will return, and a new decision will be made as to what actions need to be taken at that time.

 

And, while there are rules among the IACS members (90% of world tonnage is classed by IACS member societies) against "class hopping" (switching between societies) without doing the repairs that the first member required, a bad relationship between class and owner (perhaps caused by a surveyor insisting on something that materially affects the shipowner) could lead to the repair being done (which doesn't benefit the class society any), but then the ship transferring its class to another society (which loses the first society the survey fees).

[AlanF65]

@chengkp75

Do you know if when ships are new are warranties included on items like an Azipod or do they reduce the cost and self insure or share some of the risk with ABB?  What about on a rebuilt?

 

Just curious

 

Thanks

Alan

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

56 minutes ago, AlanF65 said:

@chengkp75

Do you know if when ships are new are warranties included on items like an Azipod or do they reduce the cost and self insure or share some of the risk with ABB?  What about on a rebuilt?

 

Just curious

 

Thanks

Alan

 

 

 

 

Major equipment will have a 1-2 year manufacturing defect warranty.  And the manufacturer will generally have given a life cycle of the equipment, and if their recommended maintenance is followed, they will generally assist with unexpected failures, if it can be shown that it was not caused by faulty maintenance, or improper operation.  A rebuilt unit will be considered as a "used" unit and the maintenance history of the rebuilt unit follows it to whatever ships it is placed on.

[LocoLoco1]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 9:36 PM, old mike said:

 

 

I suspect 'New and Improved' rebuilt Azipod units will HAVE to be in the offing....as Azipod equipped vessels surely can not be simply re-built to a Propeller/Rudder system. In hindsight, the powers that be probably pushed them beyond reasonable work limits to gain some short-term savings. ABB had a 2-day workshop pre-2012 to ferret out the gremlins (Marine Propulsion Newsletter, Sept 14, 2012), but now here it is, 2020. We cruise nonetheless, I just don't tell my wife such things.