On 07Jan2021 1549, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
list) wrote:
> I also always figured that what TRux described (USN) was always
> happening & that's one reason why the rules mandated how large the
> engineering section had to be.
>
> I also agree w/ PeterV as far as the rationale for 'annual maint' is
> concerned.
> It's as good an explanation as any other I can recall.
>
> I worked for many years in what would now be called a 'data center'.
> A number of mainframes plus assorted & various batch i/o equip & there
> were constant ongoing maint routines similar  to TomRux's description
> of the USN.
> Also, periodically, maint engineers from the manufacturer would be
> scheduled to perform more advanced preventive maint.
I always assumed that annual maintenance was all that stuff that could
be put off with adjustments and minor repairs was made good, replacement
of failing but not yet gone parts was done, everything was retuned to be
within the manufacturer's specs, and any recertification was done. It's
done in a yard because it would cost almost as much and take longer to
have the crew do it and then have to pay for an outside party to certify
the work. Besides, that way the crew can be told to "Sod off, be back at
the port in fourteen days, try not to get killed or incarcerated" and
can have themselves a decent holiday. Or, being PCs and having no common
sense, they have a whole two weeks to get into trouble trying to make money.

--

Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>