Re: life cycle > Victory
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
That's the whole point. The generator was past the end of its life cycle, it would be far easier and less expensive to replace a generator than an engine, and they still didn't replace it.
It gives me the heebie jeebies to think of being involved in a scenario like rescuing a boat drifting towards rocks, at night, in the rain, in heavy seas, and then suddenly loosing navigation, radar, and search lights.
When I said: Why don't they just replace the engines and steering gear?
I was meaning the critical equipment in those boats is fairly straightforward, and doesn't need to be custom manufactured like the exotic stuff in a cannery ship, destroyer, or oil tanker. You order the replacement equipment, remove the equipment past the end of its life cycle, and install the new equipment.
* * * *
All equipment used, where there are life safety issues, has a defined life cycle, and defined ways of checking to see if the equipment is past the end of its life cycle. The whole goal of those federal standards is to help people make plans and then replace the equipment BEFORE it fails.
Everything I've heard about the coast guard indicates the crews would be right on top of this, if given half a chance.
That means some grand poobah made a policy decision to not do required maintenance on these boats, and not decommission them.
- That decision was a criminal disregard for human life.
- Shipping companies and cruise lines keep track of issues like this, and tend to avoid places with issues like this, which hurts our economy.
Does somebody know an investigative reporter, who might be interested in looking into this, and write up who made that decision, and who influenced them to do that?