Heidi13

I look forward to you outlining exactly what misinformation was provided. Assuming you are making reference to the previous post, which i note isn't speculation, but actual facts from personal experience. I spent 40 yrs at sea on both British and Canadian ships and our son already has 20 yrs at sea, on British (Bermuda) and various FoC vessels/mega yachts. So my post is based on a combined 60 years of seafaring, and how the tax system applied to us as dual citizen seafarers.

When dealing with ocean transits, you are totally correct, only Mother Nature really knows. We can have educated guesses, based on previous experiences and meteorology knowledge, but the unexpected, both good and not so good can always happen. Fortunately, forecasting and weather routing services are vastly superior to what they were 40 - 50 yrs ago, so even when the weather is bad, the Master has a good chance of avoiding the worst areas.

Seafarers normally pay taxes in their country of residency and being a global industry, some seafarers have options in selecting a country of residency. Some country tax codes are more preferential to seafarers, so those of us with options, will use them to advantage. While still working for P&O Cruises, but taking leave in Canada, I elected to remain a UK resident, as the tax laws are very favourable for seafarers. Provided you are out of UK for 6 months (in those days), you paid the "Stamp", but no tax. Whereas, Canada taxes on your entire worldwide income. Our son, who has left cruise ships for working on the largest mega yachts does exactly the same. As a dual citizen, he uses UK as his residence.

Not sure how much seatime you have, but with 40 years at sea, my overall experience is the exact opposite. Over the years I have experience numerous storms and horrendous seas in open waters. Some of the worst are in the Southern Ocean in the roaring 40's, where there is no land masses. Now for the science. Seas can increase significantly on approaching a coast, as shallower water causes the seas to build up. As the water depth reduces the waves interact with the bottom, which reduced the wave speed, shorting the distance between waves, with a resultant increase in height. The distance of the continental shelf determines how far offshore the effect is felt. In some places, such as South Pacific islands, the water is thousands of feet deep a short distance from shore, so minimal shallow water effect. In most ports, if steaming away from the coast, it doesn't last for a day. Seas are a combination of wind waves and swell. Wind waves are created by current weather patterns, with the wave height being determined by both wind speed and fetch. Fetch is the unrestricted distance the wind blows over the water. The longer the fetch, the higher the waves for any given wind speed. Swells are caused by distant weather systems and can travel for thousands of miles across water, after the wind quits. Example - Gulf of Tehuantepec, which is SE of Acapulco and is notorious for winds blowing across the isthmus and out to sea. The Master can take the longer inshore routing where wind speed is high but sea state is lower, due to less fetch. Taking the open water route, straight across, increases the fetch, so the seas are often considerably higher in open water. Therefore, what you may have experienced is not normal practice. I have crossed the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans many times, experiencing anything from mill pond to 100' seas.

Same here, I was tethered to a cell phone being continuously on call 24/7, except when on holiday. I was provided my phone and number upon retirement, but after not having turned it on for 8 months, I returned it to the VP. Been retired almost 11 yrs and during that time, I have never had, or needed a phone. Have completed 3 trips around the World, 2 by ship and 1 flying, 2 African safaris and many other trips, without having any need or desire to have a phone. So in my experience, a mobile phone is not a requirement when cruising.

I recall hearing of the Coral's issues, but am surprised they were in discharge pipes, as most of the fouling issues have been in the sea chests, which are areas inside of the hull for intakes. Thanks for the update.

Her current position shows she is in the last lock before Montreal, so it will be a couple of days before she clears the river and enter the Gulf of St Lawrence. By then, the centre should have moved well NE. Current weather conditions and forecasts for Montreal and Quebec City are clear skies, no rain and light winds.

Most of this video is not relevant to this thread. You have included a ship going into drydock that is being prepared for a new hull coating system. This is ultra high water blasting or abrasive blasting to what is most likely SA 2.5 or near white metal - a standard that both removes all existing coatings and marine growth, and provides a surface profile for the new paint to adhere. The issue in New Zealand is removing marine contaminants, such as grass, barnacles, etc. This work is completed by divers, it does not require drydocking.

It hasn't been an issue because ships heading to those waters got their hulls cleaned and during the Northern Hemisphere summer months the cruise ships repositioned to other cruising areas. Rest assured, this will again be an issue for ships heading to NZ waters. If the ship isn't recently out of drydock, or had a diver inspection and/or cleaning of the hull, the ships have the potential for being banned.

Thanks Lyle - saw Hank's post, so provided some comments.

Correct, what probably wasn't mentioned is they are generally only that efficient on a clear day and flat calm seas. When any sort of a sea is running, the chance of the seagull being on a crest and visible to the radar on successive sweeps is very low. Unless it is visible on a number of successive sweeps, the radar considers it clutter and it isn't displayed. Never mind seagulls, I've seen situations with wet/windy days, where small boats were visible to the eye, but not shown on radar, regardless of how well it is tuned.

Wow, that can't be a young Captain, if he was a Deck Officer on Prinsendam, which sank in 1980. I am really surprised that any Captain would make that type of public statement. Yes, the ship's whistle is a maritime tradition, but it is also required for a number of functions, in addition to making the prescribed sound signals in restricted visibility. In restricted visibility, when a vessel is underway (not at anchor or secured to a berth), it makes 1 of 2 signals. When making way through the water, it sounds a prolonged blast (4 - 6 secs duration) at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes. A vessel NOT making way through the water sounds 2 prolonged blasts at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes. Ship's on deep sea passage may never sound the 2 blasts, as they are normally underway, unless broken down. However, when docking/undocking and operating in narrow coastal channels, this is something that does happen, when 1 Captain has to stop to permit another vessel to clear a bend, narrow channel, etc. Without a whistle and making the correct sound signals other vessels wouldn't know the vessel is stopped. Radar, accepting the vast improvements in technology, is still only an electronic aid to navigation and all Masters and Deck Officer should operate accordingly. Radar works best on a clear day and flat calm seas. On those types of days, we could pick up floating logs and even stationary birds. We must also be cognisant of the potential limitations of radars, especially with the suppression technology that was being introduced prior to my retirement. To reduce clutter, the suppression technology has to see a consistent return for a number of sweeps, before it actually painted it on the screen. In wet/windy conditions, I have seen many times where we can visually see small craft that are not shown on the radar screen. At times, no amount of fine tuning of the radar would display the target. Although very rare these days, I have also experienced multiple total radar failures on a ship. Having also used and purchased all major commercial radar systems, their ability in inclement weather varies considerably. This brings to me to recall a discussion I had with our son, just prior to joining his first ship. As a Cadet, he had completed his first 6-month college phase and was heading to his first ship. Talking about sextants, etc he was adamant we didn't need them, as every ship has a back up to the back ups.... He couldn't consider it possible to have the entire Bridge go black. Fortunately, he now has that experience and is more considerate of non-electronic means of navigating. Another key factor for using a whistle in restricted visibility, especially in coastal waters, is that most smaller pleasure boats have NO radar. They set to sea, navigating by smart phone GPS. I have experienced numerous near misses with small pleasure craft operating mid channel in a straight line, having them almost run into my vessel. My ship's whistle saved the day on many occasions, preventing small craft from running into us while we stopped dead in the water. The International Collision Regulations also prescribe manoeuvring and warning signals, some of which include: - Approaching a bend, the Master SHALL sound 1 prolonged blast, which shall be responded by a similar signal by any vessel hearing the signal. At a blind corner, radar is useless, as it is line of sight, it doesn't see around bends. - If any vessel, in sight of another vessel, is unsure of the intensions of another vessel it SHALL sound the "Danger Signal", which is at least 5 short & rapid blasts on the whistle - They have additional signals for altering to port, stbd, going astern and overtaking. In a man-overboard situation, the 3 long rings on the General Alarm are also sounded on the ship's whistle. This is for a number of reasons, the whistle is more audible than the G/A on deck (depending on the conditions) and it also alerts other vessels in the vicinity of the situation and that the vessel could be crash stopping, executing a Williamson Turn, etc. The continuous sounding of the ship's whistle is also a recognised distress signal. Another use that few mariners have utilised and it was not taught during my time as a Cadet, either aboard ship, or at college, is using the whistle during coastal navigation in restricted visibility. With the vessel steaming towards a charted cliff, you sound the whistle and time for the rebound (echo). Using the time, you can calculate the distance off the cliff. On the BC Coast, many ships safely navigated using the whistle and magnetic compass. I have tried this method and can attest that it does work. Therefore, having spent almost 30 years in command of Ro/Pax, I cannot agree with the Master you met on Seabourn Quest. I have personal experiences where the ship's whistle has saved me considerable paperwork and potential lawsuits. I also commanded vessels with the latest integrated technology, using it to the fullest extent, but still was comforted to know, when the you know what hit the fan, we had a magnetic compass, windows and a whistle.

Unfortunately, depending on the location of the ship's whistles, this may not always be true. The whistle can also be transmitted through the ship's structure, which I have experienced on a couple of ships.

When referring to tonnage, displacement is the weight of water that a ship displaces, so is the actual weight of the ship. Using the RCCL Oasis Class, the tonnage provided to pax of 225,000 GT is a factor of total enclosed space, at a ratio of 100 cubic feet = 1 GT. The same ship will have a displacement of about 100,000 tons. This is the actual weight of the ship. My understanding of the issue in Venice is the erosion of banks and buildings by the wash and wave action created by larger tonnage vessels. As a ship moves through the water it must displace a volume of water commensurate with its displacement. In confined and shallow channels there is considerably more impact from this displacement of water than from smaller ships. This concept is best explained by Panamax ships entering the locks of the Panama Canal. This minimal clearance down both sides and below the keel, considerable pressure is built between the ship and the lock, requiring considerable power to push the ship into the lock. My first experience saw SS Oriana pushing into the lock at 1/2 ahead until a few feet from the end. The combined tonnage of Gondolas and Vaporettos may equate to the tonnage of a mega ship, but they will never cause the same impact as a mega ship, even the combined effect of multiple smaller ships. The smaller ships are operating all over Venice, and having minimal beam and draught there is lots of water to dissipate the water they displace. Whereas the impact of a mega ship is concentrated in a single area, as the ship moves.

Edinburgh or Glasgow to London takes about 5 hrs by train, in a car it is 10+ hrs depending on motorway traffic. Same with Manchester, 2 hrs by train and 4+ hrs to drive. The trains might not go 180 mph, but they are still much faster than driving. The number of speed cameras on the UK roads today is also ridiculous, so pushing the speed is no longer an option, on the rare occasion the motorway is not congested. Back in the 70's, on paying off the ship, I could drive from Southampton and be at the Scottish border in 5 hrs, in 2017 it took 10+ hrs for the same trip. So my days of hiring a car in UK are long gone, I'll stick to the train or flights.

The immediate impact at the port is beneficial when ships plug into shore power, even if using low sulphur bunkers and/or scrubbers. However, depending on what is used to generate the electricity determines the overall benefit. In Port of Vancouver, our power is > 98% renewable, since we have an abundance of Hydro, so I'll suggest Vancouver is experiencing a positive impact on the environment. However, many areas are still using fossil fuels - oil, gas and even coal to generate power, so in areas where coal is used, I'll suggest the ship using low sulphur fuel and scrubbers would be better overall for the environment.

There are already thousands of ports throughout the World that cruise ships don't or rarely use, as they aren't close to any attractions and/or nature. Pax also prefer not to be around bulk loading terminals. The problem isn't about adding more berths, it is finding locations of interest to cruise pax. As an example, building new berths outside of Venice addresses the erosion problem, but doesn't address the number of pax being bused in for short periods.

I'll suggest that this has been coming for many years, with the root cause the mass market cruise industry business model, one component of which is economy of scale. Ever increasing ship sizes and a reduction in standards/quality are keeping prices low, opening the market to ever increasing numbers of potential pax. When I compare the cost of cruising on the original Princess ships back in the 1970/80's, the daily cost on a mass market line today, can at times, be virtually identical. This is achieved by economy of scale, hence we now have 6,000+ pax capacity, rather than 750. When we docked, many days we were the only ship in port, occasionally we had 2 ships, rarely 3 or more. Therefore, in most visits to Alaska, Venice, Santorini, etc we had 750 pax adding to the existing tourist traffic. These days, it is common to have well over 10,000 - 15,000 pax in these same ports. I also consider the difference between travellers and tourists. While it may be a generalisation, in my experience, more experienced cruisers and holiday makers follow into the traveller category, while newer cruisers tend to be in the tourist category. I'll suggest the average spend for a tourist is less than a traveller, as many of the new cruisers book cruise line tours, or head to the beach and return to the ship for lunch. I'll suggest the ports and adjoining communities are also at fault, as they initially welcomed the cruise ships and tourist dollars with open arms. Now, with ever increasing numbers of pax, in many small ports it is negatively impacting the local population, few of whom are receiving significant benefit. How this plays out in the next few years will be very interesting. I recall back in the 70's when they had 7-night cruises visiting 5 or 6 ports. With the larger ships that has dropped to 3 or 4 ports on many cruises. As the number of ports welcoming these mega ships reduces, the mega ship cruise could potentially become a floating resort visiting only 1 or 2 ports. With respect to shore power, I can't estimate the installation costs for shore power, as all our ships were built with shore power capability and have since the 1960's, so I have not estimated or project managed a conversion. However, it won't be cheap, as the cable size is significant and there will be numerous transitions through fire bulkheads. Another reason for slow implementation is that shore power is not available at the majority of cruise ship berths. In Vancouver, we are fortunate, having an abundance of fairly cheap, power that is from > 98% renewable resources. Unfortunately, not all ports have access to this type of power and at this price point.

With my understanding of the system, I believe this is how our "Crown Prosecution" operates. Even if the police lay charges, the Crown will only proceed if they have a reasonable chance of success and it is sufficiently serious. I can't imagine my SIL or any of his colleagues writing up charges against a first time motorised wheelchair user. It would require serious consequences or multiple repeats. Even with impaired driving, when they are barely over the limit with no other issues, they are usually given a 24 hrs roadside suspension, having to leave the car at the roadside and find other means to get home - no record other than the roadside suspension. Therefore, I'll suggest our RCMP and Crown Prosecution do focus on risk, as you suggest.

If the vessel is going to the Villefranche-Sur-Mer bay, it is most definitely a tender port, as no cruise ship berth is available. I don't believe cruise ships of that size can dock in Nice, which is a couple of miles West. Only berth I am aware of in that area is the one inside the breakwater in Monaco.

Don - they introduced that device here as well, including making it easier for the police to get a conviction, but the "bleeding hearts" got it overturned. SIL is RCMP and it is very time consuming to get a conviction. I won't comment on the US Laws, but personally, I believe our laws are still too lenient on Impaired Drivers.

I also have no desires to debate US v's Canadian Laws, but do take exception to your reference to Canada restricting access to those convicted of Impaired Driving, as "Dumb". We consider Impaired Driving a serious criminal offense. You may not like or agree with our laws; however, you should respect them. You posted having a serious criminal conviction (Impaired Driving), so if you consider yourself rehabilitated, there is a legal framework available to have that conviction pardoned, which will remove any restrictions on entering Canada and a number of other countries. Yes, Canada is not the only country to prohibit access to those convicted of Impaired Driving.

RCCL/Celebrity definitely won't be including Glacier Bay, as they have no permits under the current contract.

You will find a BCL at Harbour Centre on Cordova. About 400 - 500 yds from Canada Place.

Been to HK many times, but my only experience at Kai Tak was multiple flights in and out when it was still the airport. Mostly docked at Ocean terminal. I few things to consider regarding your flights - the docking time is an "Estimate", which is subject to many factors outwith the control of the Master. SE Asia waters are extremely conjested, especially with small fishing boats and junks. HK harbour is also very conjested and Kai Tak is all the way through the harbour between Kowloon & HK Island. Therefore, you have no guarantee the vessel will be alongside by 06:00. Depending on the vessel's Pratique status, it can take many hours for the local authorities to clear the vessel. Our last cruise it took them about 8 hrs, as the vessel had a reportable Noro outbreak. The distance is only 25 - 30 miles, but HK traffic can be horrendous. I have made the airport in just over 1/2 hr, but some days it can be an hour +. I have also heard others report that Kai Tak, at times does not have an abundance of taxis. The MTR is not very close to Kai Tak, so that also isn't a great option. Personally, an 11:00 flight would be outside my level of risk tolerance.