Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Navy failures blamed for gassing of four sailors on Armidale patrol boats
Volkodav    12/26/2009 4:15:48 AM
Michael McKenna From: The Australian December 26, 2009 12:00AM THE navy's Armidale class patrol boats were put to sea with design defects, missing operating procedures and inadequate training that caused an accident in which four sailors were almost killed. A secret report into the gassing of the crew aboard HMAS Maitland has raised more questions about the 16-strong fleet of Armidale patrol boats, twice recalled to port for emergency repairs since they were commissioned in 2005. The $28 million boats, dubbed "Armifail" by frustrated sailors, have been dogged by problems including fuel contamination, engine trouble, blocked toilets, lack of personal storage, inadequate lighting and overcrowding. Unusually for military vessels, the sleek 56m, aluminium-hulled Armidales were designed and constructed by West Australian-based Austal Ships to meet commercially based classification standards, and later modified to meet navy regulations. Four sailors on training exercises aboard the Maitland off Darwin in August 2006 were gassed with hydrogen sulphide, commonly known as rotten egg gas, and possibly carbon monoxide, after a leak in the ship's sewerage system. A secret report into the accident, obtained by The Weekend Australian, found effluent had not been properly treated aboard the ship and that 615 litres of sewage was stored in holding tanks for three days because there was no equipment to take the discharge in port. This caused a build-up of the toxic gases, which leaked into the 21-crew ship's spare accommodation area -- normally used to hold rescued asylum-seekers -- after a valve failed when the sewage was being pumped out at sea. The investigation found the location of air vents and sewage discharge lines did not meet specifications despite the ship being approved for duty. At the time of the accident, the boat had "no coherent" sewage management plan and no environmental plan, and investigators found crew training inadequate. Some of the problems had already been raised in previous reports. A week before the accident, the ship had returned to port after "persistent H2S (hydrogen sulphide) odours" led to the discovery of defects in black water tanks. Chief petty officer Kurt MacKenzie, was the worst affected of the sailors and spent several days in intensive care in Darwin. He spent further weeks in hospital and will next year be discharged medically unfit from the navy, after 23 years' service and membership of the 16-member elite Minor War Vessel Sea Training Unit. It is not the first accident of its kind. Naval Reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax was killed in 1981 when the sewerage system of supply ship HMAS Tobruk leaked hydrogen sulphide gas. In 1985, three sailors were killed and 56 injured when maintenance ship HMAS Stalwart also leaked hydrogen sulphide. A year later, a Naval Board of Inquiry into the Stalwart, which is no longer in service, found the fatal accident could have been avoided if correct marine engineering practices had been followed. There was no such public inquiry into the accident aboard the Maitland, with the investigation's findings kept secret amid warnings that anyone leaking the report would be charged under navy regulations. Chief Petty Officer MacKenzie said yesterday he was launching legal action for compensation on the grounds that the accident could have been prevented. The veteran sailor dismissed claims by the navy that it had fixed the problems aboard the fleet of Armidale class boats, which patrol Australia's northern waters. "From what I have been told, only one of the boats is close to meeting the recommended safety upgrades out of the report," Chief Petty Officer MacKenzie said. "The navy rushed these boats into service -- they were dangerous and we suffered as a result. My career is over. I only have about 40 per cent of lung capacity and a range of other medical problems. But the navy couldn't care less. They didn't conduct a public board of inquiry investigation; they opted for a report they could keep secret." Chief Petty Officer MacKenzie has been offered the maximum payout of about $400,000 plus a pension, but he says it is not enough, given that his injuries were "not an accident" and that he had had a bright career ahead of him. The Defence Department issued a statement to The Weekend Australian saying it was unable to release the report into the accident or comment on any findings of the investigation. Asked if the navy had fully implemented the recommendations of the report into the accident, the ADF said it was still working on the ships. "The Armidale class patrol boat is a safe, capable and reliable asset," the statement said. "Like any new class of vessel, a number of improvements in design functionality have been identified and are now being implemented."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Cyrus       12/26/2009 12:37:48 PM
my father worked for Austral when some of those where being built and from what he told me of the working conditions at Austral at the time I wouldnt get them to build me a dingy let alone a warship. tho I think they must have some clairvoyants working for them cause they allways seam to get serious about OH&S a week before a "surprise" inspection. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/27/2009 1:05:36 AM
One of the issues is the government of the day wants the capability now and they don't want to pay full price for it, end result is short cuts under the guise of calculated risk. 
 
None of the problems encountered on the ACPB's are new or unique but occur and continue to occur in every new project because the customer (i.e. the Commonwealth) continually fail to learn from experience and continue to try (and fail) to make saving by cutting upfront project planning and risk reduction costs, training and through life support planning.  Cutting these things saves money upfront and looks good on the books (and to the expensive external auditors) but will come back and bite them when expensive bits break or don't work to start with.  Failure to have trained, competent personnel and adequate spares provisions will adversely affect safety and availability.
 
Jumping up and down blaming the contractor will not fix anything, ironically adequate funding and oversight at the start of the project would prevent most of these issues from occurring at all.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/27/2009 1:05:51 AM
One of the issues is the government of the day wants the capability now and they don't want to pay full price for it, end result is short cuts under the guise of calculated risk. 
 
None of the problems encountered on the ACPB's are new or unique but occur and continue to occur in every new project because the customer (i.e. the Commonwealth) continually fail to learn from experience and continue to try (and fail) to make saving by cutting upfront project planning and risk reduction costs, training and through life support planning.  Cutting these things saves money upfront and looks good on the books (and to the expensive external auditors) but will come back and bite them when expensive bits break or don't work to start with.  Failure to have trained, competent personnel and adequate spares provisions will adversely affect safety and availability.
 
Jumping up and down blaming the contractor will not fix anything, ironically adequate funding and oversight at the start of the project would prevent most of these issues from occurring at all.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/1/2010 7:18:30 AM
Adequate Government checks and balances to ensure that the contractor was doing its job properly were obviously not in place and there are issues associated with the failure to purchase of adequate support equipment, but the primary responsibility for the engineering defects rest with Austal. The customer has the right to expect that contracters get the basics right and if the likes of Austal can't even provide a working sewage system on boats it sells to one of it's reference customer, then that is pretty piss poor in my book. What is really sad is that its orders from the RAN are complete for now so this affair is only going to hurt Austal's reputation in the international sales market, where its future and the future of those skilled jobs that everybody is so keen on seeing created and maintained lie. Dumb.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/1/2010 9:57:45 AM
I am not privy to the details of the ACPB contract, nor the negotiations prior to final approval, but I would not be surprised if Austal had hilighted the potential issues, including the sewage and fuel contamination issues, through the various review phases of the project, along with costed OTS mitigations but were over ruled as the bean counters and politically motivated PM's saw them as unnecessary gilding.
 
I have seen this behavior on projects I have worked on.  You point out the concern and you are informed in a very firm manner that they are the customer and that you will do what you are told! 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/1/2010 8:22:27 PM

I am not privy to the details of the ACPB contract, nor the negotiations prior to final approval, but I would not be surprised if Austal had hilighted the potential issues, including the sewage and fuel contamination issues, through the various review phases of the project, along with costed OTS mitigations but were over ruled as the bean counters and politically motivated PM's saw them as unnecessary gilding.
 
I have seen this behavior on projects I have worked on.  You point out the concern and you are informed in a very firm manner that they are the customer and that you will do what you are told! 


That's really just speculation, but putting myself in the seat of the bean counters if somebody came to me with a costed solution to a design problem which was their fault in the first place I would be inclined to tell them to fuck off and dig into their own profits to fix it.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/3/2010 11:25:31 AM
How can you say whether a problem is the fault of the contractor or not?
 
If someone buys a HSV Senator and then drives it down the Birdsville track is its HSV's fault the under body gets trashed, the paint chipped and the suspension falls apart?
 
Not only do you get what you pay for, you need to take into account how you intend to use it and in my personal experience there is often a disconnect, not only between the contractor and the CoA but between the CoA and their own operators.  For instance the CoA tells us the problem is one thing but when I get on board and speak to the operator I get a completely different story.
 
The bean counter is often the worst person to allow to make decisions because their lack of relevant technical knowledge will often result in significant upfront savings at the expense of safety and higher through life support costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/3/2010 9:04:10 PM

How can you say whether a problem is the fault of the contractor or not?

 If someone buys a HSV Senator and then drives it down the Birdsville track is its HSV's fault the under body gets trashed, the paint chipped and the suspension falls apart?

 Not only do you get what you pay for, you need to take into account how you intend to use it and in my personal experience there is often a disconnect, not only between the contractor and the CoA but between the CoA and their own operators.  For instance the CoA tells us the problem is one thing but when I get on board and speak to the operator I get a completely different story.

 The bean counter is often the worst person to allow to make decisions because their lack of relevant technical knowledge will often result in significant upfront savings at the expense of safety and higher through life support costs.


I blame the contractor because they designed the class and providing it with a sewage system that works isn't bleeding edge technological development. If they were asked to provide it with a ABM destroying laser that could be mounted in place of the Typhoon then I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that the government should accept the technological risk. Being able to come up with a simple engineering solution that can contain the collective waste matter of the crew for the duration of the voyage is just a matter of basic professional competance that shouldn't require any detailed instruction from the buyer.  
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics