Home › Forums › General › General Board › TMS Guards
- This topic has 26 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
shamandane.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 3, 2007 at 12:47 pm #581
Ray Shields
ParticipantAn opinion of the group please.
Guards on a TMS, do they REALLY have to be fitted if you are not working with Divers? (With divers, I totally understand that you must)
We all know what a pain in the arse it is to have to take them off to get access to do maintenance, top up oil, bleed etc. Also, increases the affect of current pushing the TMS about.
Surely if a Risk Assessment is carried out which covers operations round the TMS on deck then it is acceptable?
March 3, 2007 at 2:02 pm #10887Anonymous
GuestHi
What guards, cant even find themMarch 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm #10888Scott Beveridge
ParticipantHi
What guards, cant even find themYeah, ditto. Bloody divers! You have to be a lighthouse and then they still get their extermities caught or stuck where they shouldn’t have been.
March 3, 2007 at 4:29 pm #10889ParticipantHi
What guards, cant even find themYeah thats usually the case, they are taken off as soon as the TMS arrives onboard. However you have to find them and put them back on before an audit!
March 3, 2007 at 6:17 pm #10890Stephen Black
ParticipantThey make good holders for spare tools, fish baskets etc
March 4, 2007 at 12:41 am #10891Andy Shiers
ParticipantI would say , in my limited opinion is……………………….
Guards restricting access points for maintenance is a pretty boy touch -up from the Manufacturers ( to make it look good ! ) Or some muppet in the safety orifice thinking of more ways to complicate and screw more down time off the ROV contract. The said ‘Muppet’ suffering from dyslexia forgets that the only poor unfortunate limb that will get caught in the mechanics of the TMS is in fact a dorsel FIN 😀 ( His brain , still trained in the way of industrial disputes in the factory……..ON LAND )
Usually the ROV has it’s deployment area well away from the divers’ deployment area not so much for the diver getting his pinkys trapped in the tms but because the ROV tether gets caught around down lines /clump weight cables and divers umbilicals.
To enclose the TMS just causes more time in fixing or doing maintenance and for the fish to get stuck giving the system a perfume of salty dogs trousers whilst on deck in the sun 😕
If the situation arises that debris could become trapped in the TMS then the on site anaylasis prior to commencing the contract will show it !
Or Someone in the orifice has not done his or her homework properly 😀How about this one then Ray , Oil companies insisting on thruster guards to stop the big bad ROV doing GBH on helpless young fish !
😀March 4, 2007 at 2:17 am #10892GuestHi
Dont like thruster guards 😥March 4, 2007 at 5:10 am #10893thinsub
ParticipantDid here of a tech losing digits on a chain and sprocket on the TMS on deck. Then we all had to fit some guards again.
He was a Ozzy though.
March 4, 2007 at 9:09 am #10894Pebblemonkey
ParticipantIt does seem a little odd that tophat TMS’s are generally fitted with these guards when operating as diver support (or during safety audits), however a cage style TMS (OI) type) on a similar job requires no guards in or around the tether drum or spooling assembly.
Pebblemonkey
March 4, 2007 at 10:23 am #10895mikeritson
ParticipantDid here of a tech losing digits on a chain and sprocket on the TMS on deck. Then we all had to fit some guards again.
He was a Ozzy though.
It’s true his name is Phil he was on the KSS2000. TMS guard would not have helped in his situation if you are stupid enough to put your hand on the drive chain when the TMS is energised ……………
March 4, 2007 at 10:56 am #10896James McLauchlan
ParticipantI say, no divers, no covers… It’s a fact that maintenance suffers when guys take one look at the bolted on TMS covers and think… I’ll check it later.
No covers means easy access for checks and things are less likely to go wrong.Why is it that people talk about TMS covers but not thruster guards? Thruster prop guards have the same potential to cause damage but it’s generally accepted that they only need to be fitted (on many systems) when carrying out diver support. No body gives it a second thought. I feel TMS covers should not be focused on so much for the same reason.
We all know they can cause damage and pain but common dog needs to be applied (just as you do when carrying out ‘in air’ thruster operations during deck checks) rather than the office blindly stating … ‘they must be fitted at all times’.
March 4, 2007 at 11:02 am #10897ParticipantI agree with you all regarding the guards, but it is trying to convince the Auditors and/or office that is the key.
Risk Assessment or PUWER assessment would be the best way to go. I have also seen modified guards which are cut down guards that only cover a couple of small areas leaving the rest open (e.g. covering the side of the drum with the drive and spooling chains)
March 4, 2007 at 8:24 pm #10898ROV_Monkey
ParticipantIt’s true his name is Phil he was on the KSS2000 and he never worked in this business again. TMS guard would not have helped in his situation.
Hi Guys,
Not quite correct, I worked with Phil in Indonesia after his accident, approx four year ago. Speaking to him about the accident it seemed that it occured when the TMS was energised and Phil either slipped or had his hand on the chains at the wrong time during deck fettling. So yes, it could have been stopped by fitting gaurds around the chains/gears – now quite common in my experience…but must agree the external doors are a pain in the hoop!Regards
ROV Monkey
March 4, 2007 at 9:09 pm #10899Hot Stab
ParticipantMy previous job berfore ROVing, I made some guards for around engine fan belts etc on earthmoving equipment.
I made the guards so that pins slide into a slot and come out the other end. I think put a safety clip through the pin, to stop the guard from jumping out.
For maintanence, all you had to do was remove the safety clip and lift the guard out. It took two seconds.So yep, using guards with bolts and nuts is a pain in the arse. However if modify them a little it can make life easier and safer.
Hotstab
March 4, 2007 at 9:16 pm #10900ParticipantAgain I agree whole heartedly with you James ( I’ll join your uni0n 😆 )
A standard prop loses 48 % of it’s thrust due to water resistance along it 😯 Comon Sense should prevail when it comes to Thrusters , Yes they turn very quickly 😯 So does a lawn mower ! but you don’t stick your fingers under it without stopping it or turning off the mains cable
Unless your Australian of course 😆
Putting a thruster guard on reduces the effieciency of the ROV and also creates an ass of a problem when you get fishing line or rope in it 😕
If the mesh is too large fishing line and rope will still get in and the time taken to take the bloody thing off (because some twat in the orifice THINKS its a good idea) If the mesh is too small then the ROV won’t work very well ! Will it !
People should not put their little pinkies near the props unless the Electrikery is turned off ( On deck or in the water close to Bubbleheads )
Leave them all off is what I say , Only 😀
Keep the aussies away from them 😀 ( concerned for them )
Let the Yanks close to them 😀 ( Not concerned for them ) 😆 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
