Download - Royal Australian Navy

58 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003
MT watch keeping requirements
needed to:
a. safely sail an FFG in cruising
watches, and
b. maintain ship safety and
preparedness whilst the ship
is alongside.
The review needed to consider all
likely situations that a watch
keeper would face whilst carrying
out their normal duties. These
included plant failure, damage
control incidents and operation of
the engineering plant whilst in
redundant modes. The effect of
such on the rest of the ship’s
capability was also examined.
Finally, other peripheral issues
were considered including what
effect the proposed changes in
watch keeping practices may
have on current training.
The scope allowed for both
hardware and routine based
solutions.
Finally, one of the drivers for this
study was a need to increase
retention of personnel and so a
broad license was given to
consider any areas associated
with the topic that may improve
the workplace leading to a
reduction in personnel wastage.
The Analysis and Optimisation
Process
The approach for this Study was
carried out mindful of what we
viewed as the root requirement.
That is, to keep a Defence Asset
(the Ship) at a stated level of
preparedness in order to either
complete a mission or to be
available on a stated level of
standby to carry out a mission if
required. Keeping this in mind,
the Study attempted to link each
watch keeping task needing to be
performed back to this root
requirement.
Within the FFG Class context, the
broad functions listed below were
considered as making up the
perceived need for personnel to
keep continuous watches at sea.
Attached to each of the functions
listed below would be a list of
tasks carried out by an
engineering cruising watch
keeper. These functions were:
a. plant operation to provide
control for navigational,
operational or safety
reasons,
b. manual recording of
machinery and other
operating data,
c. performing low-level, high
frequency maintenance
tasks,
d. safety examinations (via
visual inspection) of
engineering and, during
transit, other spaces
throughout the ship,
e. to provide a ready and alert
team that can:
i. respond quickly to
engineering plant failures
or critical problems,
ii. respond quickly to
emergencies such as fire,
toxic hazards or floods,
and
iii. operate the plant in
redundant modes should
a normal operating mode
fail,
f. to provide timely and flexible
services such as being part
of the helicopter or boat
refuelling team, and
g. to provide expert and
immediate advice on
engineering matters to
Command or other
functional areas of the ship
as required.
Alongside watch keeping routines
were broken down into the
following functions:
a. maintaining preparedness,
b. emergency and hazard
monitoring,
c. specialist and general
response to above incidents
(within given constraints),
and
d. ship security.
The task listings were developed
using a three tiered breakdown
structure underneath the
functions listed above. This
approach ensured all tasks likely
to be carried out as part of the
current practices were captured
for analysis.
Using a risk-based approach,
each task was considered with a
view to removing the task from
the duties of the watch keeper. If
removal was not an option, other
alternatives were explored. The
risk analysis was carried out
using an adaptation of the
RELeGEN’s BASELINE CIRAS
(Critical Item Risk Assessment
System). In short, the four
decision collection points were:
a. omit without further action if
HRA =/> 18,
b. omit with alterations/
contingencies placed on
other tasks,
c. modify task to reduce
frequency, complexity or
duration, and
d. retain in current form.
From this exercise, 421 raw tasks
were identified. Examples of
these tasks at the lowest level
would be ‘Start Gas Turbine in
Manual Mode’ or ‘Respond to
loss of lube oil pressure on Ship
Service Diesel Generator at local
operating position’. For various
reasons there was a considerable
difference in some operator work
practices and procedures across
the Class. In order to ensure all
tasks would be included for later
analysis, task lists were
developed from first principles
using information contained in