Very helpful to read the detailed views of the most qualified commentators on this thread. For my part, I particularly appreciate the views of DH given his presence on the ship in question and many years of captaining naval vessels. I agree that the Edge would have the benefit of all of the modern cruise ship propulsion and maneuverability devices, but I for one would not presume to tell DH that his lack of comfort with the proximity to the cliffs would have been alleviated "after a few hours using a bridge simulator" (akin to patting DH on the head and saying something like "don't worry, buddy, you stick to driving the dump trucks and let the captains of the fancy teslas/ferraris/maseratis show you how its done"). I'm very new to the boards, and understand from my brief time here that you are quite an authority on cruise ships. But I appreciate DH validating the feeling that many of the local boat captains and other witnesses had (all were eyewitnesses) that the Edge was uncomfortably close to the natural wonders of the Na Pali cliffs.
I agree that the captain on the bridge, fully experienced with the capabilities of the Ship, was in the best position to determine the safety of the vessel under his command. But there is always an element of risk in charting a course very close to land, and I don't think anyone is arguing that getting this close is a risk-free proposition, akin to sailing miles offshore (as is typical for say, the Pride of America). The captain determined that this was a "safe" maneuver, and thankfully, he was correct. This time. But even if the approach did not violate local laws, this looks like a much riskier path to take, the kind of thing that made a former naval captain "uncomfortable" and shocked the local boat captains. Given the reduced margin of error, would it be out of line to call this a "stunt"? In your opinion, was this maneuver as "safe" as steering a course miles off shore instead? Would you argue that captains in the future should have leeway to make similar maneuvers (again, assuming no local laws are impacted), as long as they make a judgment that it is "safe"? The focus of the discussion on this thread seems to assume that there a line where something is judged "safe", up until the point that the ship hits a sandbar or rock, and then it's "not safe" (@CostaConcordia). But would you agree that it's actually a sliding scale of risk that at some point becomes an unacceptable risk? Should the Edge have been permitted to go even closer to the cliffs (assuming no local laws were impacted)?
I don't think the people of Hawaii are willing to allow cruise ships to take these kinds of elevated risks with the natural beauty and resources of the land for the sake of a thrilling view of the Kaua'i coast.
Apologies for the long post, but I was born and raised in Hawaii, and there is already a lot of tension between local people and the tourism industry. This kind of event only makes the local Hawaii people more resentful of what they often perceive as a "cavalier" attitude of tourists toward the land and its beauty.
Looks like authorities in Hawaii will be keeping a close eye on cruise ships in the State from now on. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/06/04/state-closely-monitor-cruise-ships-after-large-liner-appeared-sail-too-close-kauais-na-pali-coast/
