@MCCCANM@OnDisasters In the early nineties on charter flights to southern Europe, all the kids would stand in line to visit inside the cockpit together with their parents. I remember it quite vividly from a DC10 once.
@cybergibbons Noticed they say “ebus” at the breaker, so I assume simplification. Else they would need an intricate load shedding philosophy to trip all non-essentials when in emergency mode. Doubt class society would approve of such a cheapification of a well established use of ebuses.
@cybergibbons Definitely simpler, but I would presume the same better-safe-than-sorry mentality would be applied, i.e. increasing redundancy when maneuvering
@cybergibbons My impression is also that PMS understanding varies greatly between ships. Some crew are tech savvy and really understands the complexity, others just want to keep stuff as is and interfere with it as little as possible. The latter is a recipe for disaster when problems arise
@cybergibbons My experience is mostly for DP vessels, I have designed and programmed PMS and worked with such systems for 15 years. I find it silly to operate with both generators on same bus in maneuvering. It may result in single failure blackout. DP vessels.
@cybergibbons I usually recommend crew to use gensets on either side of bustie for redundancy. Also with both transformer feeders closed. May run with open tie if system is designed to split and isolate failures. Otherwise, if blackout puts you in a bad spot: run with split bus.