Endurance report highlights effects of undermanning

HMS Endurance in Portsmouth Harbour

HMS Endurance in Portsmouth Harbour

The report into the 2008 flooding of HMS Endurance has highlighted the serious effects of undermanning in the Royal Navy. The report can be found here.

On 16 Deceme 2008 HMS Endurance, the Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship, suffered serious engine room flooding off the southern tip of Chile that very nearly resulted in the loss of the ship. At the time of the incident the crew were cleaning a seawater inlet strainer. During the operation a remotely operated valve opened, causing flooding.

However, the roots of the incident can be traced back to the decision to deploy Endurance to the South Atlantic for 18 months, in order to save money – the report suggesting that she deploy for such a long stretch identified financial cost as the only caveat. The challenge of meeting such a long deployment was met by implementing a crew rotation described as ‘between managed gapping and a formal three watch system’ – euphemisms for undermanning. As a result at times the ship would be short of key personnel. At the time of the planned 18 month deployment a need was identified for an additional Petty Officer Engineer, but this need was no met due to fleet-wide shortages of this role.

In October 2007 Endurance completed her Operational Sea Training, and apparently performed well. During this period, however, she had not adopted her new manning regime, so the assessment was effectively meaningless. Surely if the ship had been inspected while operating the new manning regime, the Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) would have identified problems?

Apparently during the deployment Endurance was producing much less fresh water than was considered normal (one of the ships laundries was closed down, and the crew were told to conserve water) and the engineering department attempted to identify why and rectify the problem. A blocked inlet strainer was identified. However, after cleaning two pipes were re-connected incorrectly.

The panel found that there was not enough expertise onboard regarding the fresh water system, and the Engineering Officer was not sufficiently aware of how the system worked. The panel also found that lack of manpower meant that Senior Ratings who were supposed to be acting in a supervisory role were having to be involved in manual maintenance tasks. This lack of senior ratings also led to poor co-ordination and risk assessment. The recently arrived CO also told the panel that he felt the Engineering Department was ‘set in its ways’ as too many of its personnel had been on Endurance for a long time.

That the ships crew managed to save the ship in such challenging circumstances is testament to their inherent professionalism. It is just a shame that they and HMS Endurance were put in such a position, primarily due to financial constraints. We should remember as well that this is an ice patrol ship operating in peacetime conditions – what sort of conditions are there on Warships, and what effect would this undermanning and cost-cutting have during wartime?

The report did not recommend any charges to be brought against the ships crew. Surely this is a tacit admission that the causes of the incident were based on cost-cutting from above. As a result, 2 years later, Endurance is still laid up in Portsmouth, awaiting a decision on whether she will be repaired or scrapped.

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under Navy, News

5 responses to “Endurance report highlights effects of undermanning

  1. Well said, well written. Thanks James!

  2. James Daly

    It just struck me that there have been calls for Court Martials, which is pretty unfair and smacks of a witchhunt. While the incident was caused by human error that human error was caused by cost-cutting, short-sightedness and higher incompetence. Yet again we see british servicemen and women doing a good job in spite of and not because of their superiors.

  3. Pingback: Sea Links « New Wars

  4. x

    I watched the Nat Geo program that covered that particular deployment.

    Though I am not an engineer I do have passing interest in ships’ engines. And from the get go it seemed something amiss. It was as if the clankies though competent were, how shall I say it, a bit lost? I know the Plum’s mechanicals aren’t standard navy fare but there was very much a makeshift, make-do-and-mend air to the whole venture.

    Any fault in here lies obviously at the feet of their lordships.

  5. James Daly

    Thats the impression I get reading between the lines with the report. Its a tacit admission that the guys on Endurance did a good job, but that the Navy is being run on a shoestring in terms of equipment, maintenance, manning and deployments. Sadly incidents like that are bound to happen sooner or later if things aren’t run properly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s