spook

It's impossible to knock the people who work hands on. Or the crew on the ships.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is the hard part though.... Can't argue with that. Applying common sense often helps though, especially where subjects such as IRIS are concerned.

There are people who are members of this forum who actually are experts where some subjects are concerned.

Isn't that axe you've been grinding for so long sharp enough yet? No. Incompetence and exploitation is still not fully exposed and accepted. The excuse about the UA precluding the removal of the unsuited fast craft is also interesting. Who pressed for the things to be mandated in the UA? There is a great need for FOI legislation and right now more than ever.

You get what you accept. You deserve what you get.

Oh you read that; must be absolutely true then. Funny because I just went to the 3FM webpage where the headline reads 'SPC calls for passengers to be 'realistic' over problems' What he actually says is 'people' have to be realistic about 'what could be achieved' regarding immunity from third party damage. I don't suppose editors or journalists would ever 'edit' sound bytes to suit their means.... It matters not one jot. The fact remains that the customers have not been put as the number one priority.

No, my dear. Sending an open letter is a means of public criticism.

I read that Woodward is asking for passengers delayed by the gross inadequacies of the ferry to be reasonable. So here's an open letter to Woodward. YOU be reasonable. The ferry enjoy a monopoly on the surface route to the Island. It is self evident that the service that you provide is inadequate and because of the failures of the vessels used being caused by the environment within the Irish Sea that the vessels are unfit for purpose. The ferry company that you manage have massively disrupted the plans of your customers and no doubt in some cases with tragic results. A reasonable response would be to use best endeavours to provide a link to and from the Island and one measure that you should have employed would be to arrange air links for people who had urgent need. To be frank telling customers to be reasonable is utterly disgusting. Reasonable is to expect a little delay but the ferry company, and in this case that means YOU to have used best endeavours to transport people to where they expected to be transported. Had you done so then one outcome would be to have turned what is becoming a public relations disaster into a public relations success, instead you are expecting your customers to be 'reasonable'. I don't know what your 2015/6 advertising budget is but believe me, it will be a total waste of money now. Your response has been an advertising campaign all of its own. But what you've advertised is the very thing that no business that relies on the general public wants to be advertised. Especially on the biggest social network of them all. Woodward, you have not done good.

Also proves that manx forums is littered with posts from sock puppets. WHAT THE BLUE BLAZES IS A SOCK PUPPET?

you only have to have something like a dome shape filter (like on carburettors), or similar idea, so that the area of the holes add up to the original area of the opening so that there is no added restriction to the through flow and have no detrimental effect when fitted except to keep rubbish out I really don't think it's that simple. The speed of water flowing through the holes would create merry hell inside the structure because of vortices created by the high pressure fluid going through the holes that would then interact and result in a huge turbulent body of water inside what would become a form of unstable plenum chamber. Trouble with water is that it soon starts to behave in very non liquid ways when you do things to it. It's many a long year since I completed the fluid dynamics bit of my degree course but I still think of it with cold horror. Just plug 'Fluid Dynamics into a search engine, then read the results - and weep! how long have you been a world authority on everything ? Sorry, it does come across as that.

you only have to have something like a dome shape filter (like on carburettors), or similar idea, so that the area of the holes add up to the original area of the opening so that there is no added restriction to the through flow and have no detrimental effect when fitted except to keep rubbish out I really don't think it's that simple. The speed of water flowing through the holes would create merry hell inside the structure because of vortices created by the high pressure fluid going through the holes that would then interact and result in a huge turbulent body of water inside what would become a form of unstable plenum chamber. Trouble with water is that it soon starts to behave in very non liquid ways when you do things to it. It's many a long year since I completed the fluid dynamics bit of my degree course but I still think of it with cold horror. Just plug 'Fluid Dynamics into a search engine, then read the results - and weep!

Where do they dig you people up from? Do you go on a special course somewhere that convinces you to have an unfailing belief that everything you think of and commit to print must be right? Yes great idea, lets put a 'strainer' over a water jet intake producing thousands of horse power. Now why didn't the manufacturers think of that? Did YOU ever pause to consider that there are a number of people on the Island, and even the occasional interested party who although no longer resident have a deep care about their homeland, that happen to be quite sufficirntly qualified to comment, and even express expert, REAL expert, opinion. A filter of some forms over the intake to the pumps that generate the water jet may be problematic, or might be excessively expensive. I do know that in pumped hydro electric plants in Africa macerating active intakes are used to pump water into the holding lake so the technology does exist though I do not believe that it would be cost effective or technically feasible for a glorified tin bath belting through the water like sh*t off a hot shovel but it's not an idea to be treated as being stupid, rather it deserves an explanation why it is not feasible. Or maybe you don't know why?

And yet another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. But even more clever - one that can spot metal fatigue from a photo. The Press Release states that these were checked and passed by the regulatory authorities just before coming in to service this year. '. Metal fatigue is difficult to detect until a component that is fatigued enters the tertiary stage when the creep becomes much more obvious. In fact the bigger the lump of metal the more difficult it is to detect without some serious non destructive testing focusing on parts that are suspected of being subject to exceptional load. Ultrasound testing and micro cracking detection is also far from being totally reliable which is why in the case of aircraft and other safety critical applications components are replaced after a period of use based on the established characteristics of the material used and the stresses that it would have experienced over a period of time. What IS a fact is that the surface of a metal component that has experienced a fatigue failure usually shows a particular surface that is irregular and rough. And, 'Silver Surfer', although most of my career did not involve material science, in the early years it did. See my post above. I would expect that the professionals responsible for certifying this equipment would be aware of all that. And the chances of two of these (according to the Packet) failing at exactly the same time due to metal fatigue? Pretty slim I'd say. Firstly I would not expect inspection to involve examining other than structural integrity and safety matters. Secondly because the vessels are of roughly the same vintage and having undertaken similar service cycles being exposed to a hazard that the P & O had probably not been exposed to before a similar failure is not outside the bounds of possibility. The bottom line remains that for the route that is being operated it is patently obvious that this class of vessel is unfit for purpose.

And yet another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. But even more clever - one that can spot metal fatigue from a photo. The Press Release states that these were checked and passed by the regulatory authorities just before coming in to service this year. '. Metal fatigue is difficult to detect until a component that is fatigued enters the tertiary stage when the creep becomes much more obvious. In fact the bigger the lump of metal the more difficult it is to detect without some serious non destructive testing focusing on parts that are suspected of being subject to exceptional load. Ultrasound testing and micro cracking detection is also far from being totally reliable which is why in the case of aircraft and other safety critical applications components are replaced after a period of use based on the established characteristics of the material used and the stresses that it would have experienced over a period of time. What IS a fact is that the surface of a metal component that has experienced a fatigue failure usually shows a particular surface that is irregular and rough. And, 'Silver Surfer', although most of my career did not involve material science, in the early years it did.

No it isn't. It clearly shows the unsuitability of this type of craft for the purpose of providing a ferry service on the Isle of Man route. The currents around the Island concentrate flotsam and jetsam in a series of giant eddys which means that there are in effect 'patches' of debris that move as tides flow and ebb but remain areas of detritus. These fast craft using water jet propulsion simply can't cope with this. The proof is out there day after day.

EasyJet do not carry vehicles. Or substantial amounts of freight.

Of interest? http://www.travelwatch-isleofman.org/uploads/5/6/8/7/5687674/vulnerability_2012.pdf

So use a port that is not prone to being frequently unusable due to fog, and there are magic goggles. Radar. I wish I was clever like you Brian Study, gain real world experience, work hard, and one day you might be.

From the House of Keys direct to Ballymona.

So use a port that is not prone to being frequently unusable due to fog, and there are magic goggles. Radar.

Special offer fares should not be used to determine the real cost of passage. To go for a quick dash across to Calais using the Channel Tunnel starts at around 50 quid for a car plus 4, whereas the prices ramp significantly when other than a short trip is involved so it would be wrong to claim that 50 quid is a representative fare. The Manx ferry IS expensive.

People get just below what they believe they are accepting. Raise the bar.

Hogwash. The user agreement is a contrived contract that works against the interest of the population as a whole. Other operators could use other vessels in other ways. The whole ferry service is a clustermuck that needs to be redefined from first principles.

But do they cost more?

Renege on the 'user agreement' or at the VERY least take it off the table for any future deals. Review the market and determine if the number of sailings deliver more than is required, if so then tailor the schedules to an optimal number. Note the word - optimal. The current issues are mostly due to the vessels and the routes being not fit for purpose, other than from the Ferry perspective. The astronomical cost of fares is in no small way due to the way that the ferry company is structured and financed. Harbours and ports size and access? A red herring. Available alternative vessels? Another red herring. The unsuitability of the current vessels significantly increases the NEED for replacements to deal with what has become an emergency situation. Know what 'trmpton'? I very seldom resort to profanities but this one occasion that I simply can't find an alternative other than describe what you have posted as being a load of bullshit.