Publication:Navy Engineering Bulletin March 2006/Letters to the Editor
Dear Dave,
Greetings from New Zealand and congratulations on a fine forum for Engineers. Along with my peers and fellow RNZN Engineers I thoroughly enjoy reading every edition of the Bulletin and look forward to future issues. In issue 9 the topic that got me motivated to write was the well written article by CPOMT CORCORAN of WESTRALIA on Water Mist Fire Suppression Systems. Whilst studying on MEAC 19 at CERBERUS in 1995 I was part of a team that wrote a service paper on "Environmentally Friendly Alternative to Halon 1301". We came to a similar conclusion at this time that the "Hi-fog" system was certainly the way of the future. I am pleased to see this has become a reality.
In my current role as MEO on HMNZS TE MANA I am all too aware of the increasing difficulty with servicing the HALON system and the down side of "Halon activation" after a fire incident. I think it is only a matter of time before we are faced with retrofitting ANZAC's and other Navy Platforms with similar systems and enjoy the benefits they provide as outlined in the article. Keep up the great work.
Paul Gray LTCDR, RNZN MEO TE MANA
Thanks for your comments Sir. Glad the Bulletin makes it across the TASMAN and that you and your colleagues enjoy reading it.
DW
To the Editor,
As an ex WOMTP5/20 year serving member of the RAN, I read with interest the saga associated with the fitting of air intake filters for the propulsion gas turbines fitted to HMAS NEWCASTLE. One extremely important issue comes to mind with the recognition of an operating anomaly albeit in the Middle East area of operations, that being the ingestion of particulate contamination into the propulsion gas turbines. I fully understand what affect this has on this complicated piece of equipment. I must now enquire as to how many Reports of Defective Material or Design Form applications (TM179) have been submitted by the ship reporting this rather significant operating anomaly to the respective Technical Authorities, namely the FFGSPO in the first instance. From the comments made in the article, this latest incident is not the first time this procedure has been used, which basically confirms the requirement to initiate TM179 action the first time that it was encountered, I assume years previous and any subsequent similar incidents?
Whilst the crew are to be congratulated for their adaptability in order to overcome a major problem, the basis of overcoming any particular technical problem still falls within the technical structure/DTRN as it is now known which starts by the reporting of said anomalies especially if this isn't the first occurrence and also to identify if similar incidents are or are not occurring on other vessels of the class.
If however the ship has reported these incident/s by TM179 action then I believe that this should have been stated in the article due to the great importance that should be placed on the Defect/Design anomaly reporting system.
Interested to hear the results.
Danny Grose ASO6/(Techncal) Technical Support Group Ship Repair Contract Organisation-WA BLG 73 HMAS STIRLING ROCKINGHAM WA 6958
Danny, you raise a very interesting point and I would invite LCDR Peterie to respond.
DW
