[NYCAP123]

"He should be thinking he is the one person onboard who is responsible to make decisions about what goes in fuel tanks."
No, that would be the adult captain doing the act or the engineer who works for that captain and the current owner of the vessel.

"if the owner tells the captain to perform an illegal or unsafe act it does not relieve anyone of the responsibility for taking that action."
Obviously you missed the fact that he (not being as smart as you) didn't even consider the act to be dangerous or illegal. He thought it may hurt the machinery.

"Damage is a downstream consequence, the immediate threat is the creation of a hazard and a violation of hazmat rules among others."
I agree completely as I mentioned in post #8

"That my friend is precisely why I am happy thinking like that id being relegated to the part of this industry where it impacts the fewest people, hopefully it will continue to fade away with time."(referring to taking someone to task for anonymously ratting a person out like a schoolyard tattletale in stead of confronting them face to face like a man.)
A weasel is a weasel and is dealt with like a weasel. If you consider that 18th century thinking that's fine by me. You might want to stay in your room though, because there are a lot of people in the 21st century that you really don't want to deal with.

"If the captain were the only person to "accept" the consequences that might be OK, unfortunately far too many other people suffer the consequences of the poor training, incompetence, stupidity, and blind arrogance behind the management position you describe. It has no place in this industry."
Is that not what I said when I wrote: "My personal policy, which I announce to my hands, is that I welcome second guessing "
I'm just not arrogant enough to think that the world not only should, but does live by my standards.

It's a shame that you stayed up all night and that was the best you could come up with. Maybe you should just stop trying to start fights were none exist for a change. Even you may find there is more to be learned.

This thread has served out its useful purpose. I think that YF would do well to close it at this time unless someone can think of anything productive that hasn't been covered. Bon Voyage Marmot.

[strat57]

Originally Posted by NYCAP123

Even you may find there is more to be learned.

This thread has served out its useful purpose. I think that YF would do well to close it at this time unless someone can think of anything productive that hasn't been covered. Bon Voyage Marmot.

Maybe I'm off base here but requesting this thread to be closed is rather premature wouldn't you say NYCAP123? No one has really addressed the laws regarding disposal of hazardous materials in such a manner nor have they addressed just what stance the USCG might have from a safety stand point.

Based on your own observation quoted above.... I'll agree there is much more to be "learned" regarding this particular situation and preventing future lapses in judgment.

As far as my statement regarding C4ENG listing his name and company.... the point was to get those who aspire to or currently work in the industry to realize their action or inaction can and will affect them directly along with their employer.

For example if the disposal violated EPA rules not only would the captain be held accountable but the owner of the vessel would also. Chances are the captain couldn't afford to pay large fines while the owner would be expected to.

As far as the STCW-95 course..... taking one is not a bad idea. Like any profession, taking refresher courses only helps to keep yourself (read anyone interested) current regarding changes in maritime law, abreast of the latest advances in technology, etc. well.... you get the idea.

I would recommend anyone thinking of purchasing a large vessel to at least consider taking several courses including acquiring their OUPV-6, a radar certificate, MROP and both CPR and advanced life saving.

Your insurance co. will love ya for it, and it will also give an owner a much better understanding of the captain and crew he may or may not need to employ.

So close this thread? Come on now..... Let's move it forward in a constructive manner.

[NYCAP123]

Hi STRAT57,
I suggested closing the thread because it had degenerated into nothing but a fight over semantics and was serving no useful purpose. I think we all knew at the start that the action was foolish, later learned that it was dangerous and possibly criminal. I would of course welcome a thread enlightening people on the use and handling of various hazardous materials. Let's start one.

"As far as my statement regarding C4ENG listing his name and company.... the point was to get those who aspire to or currently work in the industry to realize their action or inaction can and will affect them directly along with their employer.
For example if the disposal violated EPA rules not only would the captain be held accountable but the owner of the vessel would also. Chances are the captain couldn't afford to pay large fines while the owner would be expected to."
Wouldn't you agree that that is a much nicer and more productive way of putting it rather than calling for a boycote of someone's company?

I completely agree that keeping our education current is very important. I'm lucky that the number of vessels I run each year keeps me fairly up to date with electronics and systems, but there is always room for improvement. I recently ran into a captain who didn't know how to use a chartplotter or GPS. (No need to comment on that).

As to: "I would recommend anyone thinking of purchasing a large vessel to at least consider taking several courses including acquiring their OUPV-6, a radar certificate, MROP and both CPR and advanced life saving."
Although I would personally love that to be so I believe their attorneys would recommend against it as it would then subject them to a different level of liability.
So let me finish my participation in this thread by quoting your very smart statement: "Let's move it forward in a constructive manner."

[Codger]

Maybe, just maybe, if you happen to see someone doing something that may cause harm or damage, you ought to express those concerns. They don't have to listen, but perhaps the fact that you expressed a concern just might help them have a second thought about what they're doing. If you are wrong or they don't give it a second thought, no harm, no foul. Lord knows, none of us knows it all, and we sure don't have enough time to make all the mistakes ourselves, although I've been told that I do seem to be working on it.

[MacMcL]

Currently there are several commercial work boats (190') that visit Port Everglades and run on Biofuel. Isn't biofuel the addition of ethanol to diesel? These vessels all have CAT engines.

[Pascal]

BioDiesel has nothing to do with ethanol! it's very similar to regular diesel and can be made from a variety of oil... Algae is the most promising source of bioD and there is a lot research going on in that field since it can be grown quickly not just in ponds but also in transparent tubes or even large bags.

sugar cane, palm oil,etc... can be used for bioD which is safe for most diesel. the only issue is that it cleans the tanks and lines so expect frequent filter change at the begining....

actually, it is possible to run many diesel of used vegie oil. some work boats do that too as well as many road cars... you just need to filter heat and warm it up a little to get it fluid enough.

[K1W1]

Hi,

Here is what Wikipedia describes Bio Diesel as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

My new VW Passat and previous car a 2007 Audi A4 S Line have nice big stickers inside the fuel caps...... NO BIODIESEL

Both cars have the 2000 TDI Engine.

[Marmot]

The prohibition may have more to do with the particulate filters (if) fitted to those vehicles and very little to do with the engine itself.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by K1W1

Hi,

Here is what Wikipedia describes Bio Diesel as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

My new VW Passat and previous car a 2007 Audi A4 S Line have nice big stickers inside the fuel caps...... NO BIODIESEL

Both cars have the 2000 TDI Engine.

Just so you know that if you need to, my friend runs regular off the shelf veg oil in his Jetta all the time.

[K1W1]

Originally Posted by Marmot

The prohibition may have more to do with the particulate filters (if) fitted to those vehicles and very little to do with the engine itself.

Hi,

The dealer says it is the seals in the fuel system.

My previous Passat 1.9 TDI (2003) was able to and did run ok on Bio Diesel but not the newer one

[FISHTIGUA]

I used to work for VW/Audi/Porsche/Volvo dealership.

Yes the old diesels will happily run on veg-oils, though we used to get 'secret' service bulletins to not to honour any engine/fuel warranty claims if the car smelt of anything non 'pump'.

New cars, don't do it

Fish

[NYCAP123]

"not to honour any engine/fuel warranty claims if the car smelt of anything non 'pump'."

Unless you're out of waranty or otherwise don't mind assuming total responsibility for your motors I think that trumps the science.

[Talon]

The simple rule should apply:-

If in doubt, don't do it - check before your actions have consequences.

I think that this covers everyone, with all abilities and standings as Captains, Engineers, always err over caution.