voyageur9

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

... Are you asking about somehow opening the door without hydraulics?  If that is the case, then no, they cannot be opened or closed manually.  ...

thanks for the informative response.

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Totally agree.  The photos give me a vital clue into the incident.  The first picture shows an "expanded" flex joint (which is a corrugated, flexible section of piping that allows for movement between the two sections of machinery) in what looks like a steam heat exchanger.  This flex joint most likely was full of water, and this blew out when steam was introduced.  There was no fire, but the space filled with hot steam.

 

As you say, Walker makes veiled accusations about the watertight door not operating.  This makes perfect sense to me.  The hydraulic watertight doors operate with no rubber sealing to make the watertight seal, it relies on hydraulic force to jam the door into a wedge shaped frame.  And, the hydraulics are strong enough to "un-jam" the door when it needs to be opened.  However, if the door is heated by the steam filling the space, it expands in the wedge frame, increasing the pressure required to open the door, likely above what could be provided by the hydraulic pump.

 

Mr. Walker also states that the workers were not equipped with EEBD, but that is not a common industry practice for nearly all work done in engine rooms, and EEBD's are most common on tankers, but also they are only a few scattered at locations around the engine room, not typically carried by workers to their worksite.

 

He also makes it sound as if HAL is guilty of something for not releasing results of internal investigations, but he doesn't say whether US companies of whatever type have to release this information, or whether that information comes from law enforcement sources, as the Flag State and class investigations equate to.

 

Just more fuel for my disdain for Walker. 

To your point about that "if the door is heated by the steam filling the space, it expands in the wedge frame, increasing the pressure required to open the door, likely above what could be provided by the hydraulic pump" then the issue may be moot given that the those inside may have been boiled alive. However, are you also saying that maritime hydraulically-closed watertight doors are cannot be manually opened, once closed?

The Dutch OVV is analogous to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in that it investigates accidents with under a mandate to  determine causal or contributing sequences, failures and deficiencies rather than to assign blame or culpability.

The OVV does publish its accident investigation reports. Like the NTSB, it is usually months, sometimes years, before final reports are issued depending on the complexity of the case.

Yes, Canadian customs and immigration at the port for entry into Canada.

Then, at Vancouver airport, U.S. customs and immigration if, and only if, you are flying directly into the United States.

thanks hallsam, ... are you aware of the identity of the second cruise ship. Marine Traffic has one some distance away but it's only identified to satellite service subscribers. 

The Knud Ramussen is a relatively small Danish naval patrol vessel. It is not designed for towing or salvage. At roughly 2,000 tonnes it's about one-quarter the weight and two-thirds the length of the Ocean Explorer. It might be able to dis-embark the passengers but it would be a rather uncomfortable journey. Current crew size is 18 with berths for 43.

If the picture is anywhere near high tide, this vessel is likely very hard aground. The bow is several feet above the normal water line. Help is a long way away. The perils (and rewards) of cruising in high latitudes with (often) poorly charted areas

https://gcaptain.com/expedition-cruise-ship-ocean-explorer-aground-in-greenland/

Refreshing to read Hank's well-reasoned and intelligent assessment. There's nothing negative about correctly assessing that a ship is about to sink. Even rats get it.

"A rotten carcass of a boat, not rigg'd,
Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats
Instinctively had quit it."

Shakespeare's The Tempest, Act I, Scene II (1610)

18 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

... Folks can debate about the future of CCL, but there is little disagreement that things cannot continue with that kind of cash drain.  The reality is that CCL has over $20 Billion of debt with few remaining tricks left that would increase cash flow.

 

Hank

27 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

OMG! CCL traded as low as $7.01 this morning. Down 20% and right at the Morgan Stanley target of $7.

 

And the last time CCL traded at $7, .... Bush the first was prez, Braniff went out of bizness, the Olympics opened in Barcelona, all in July 1992. Meanwhile the Westerdam, no not the current one, but the previous one bought used from Homeric was HAL's newest ship. 

Bloomberg reports on Panama Canal plans to raise (and simplify) rates on all types of shipping.

On 3/17/2022 at 9:29 AM, steve4031 said:

 

This is a complete fail by HAL.   ..... 

Absolutely, and the apologists and cheerleaders brimming with sanctimonious 'blame-the-victim' tut-tuttery doesn't obscure the reality that HAL delivered far below the minimum and -- worse -- lied about a supposed solution which made the mess worse.

The requirement is the U.S. government's. It applies all air passengers over two. And the test timing is day of return or day before return. So test on Saturday is good enough for a flight anytime Sunday.

This is entirely separate from what Canadian authorities may or may not require to enter Canada. 

It's possible, but not certain the same test will suffice. For instance, some countries require a negative PCR for entry (the U.S. only recently changed its policy to allow antigen tests.) Also the testing window may not be the same.

Even if HAL provides testing to meet the regulations of the nation of disembarkation, that may not meet the entry requirements for onward travel to another sovereign jurisdiction..

Here's the current U.S. entry testing requirement for arrivals by air. Note that land and sea arrivals may have different requirements and all three have changed over time.

... short of putting you over the side in a life raft with 10 days worth of rations and a few gallons of fresh water, it's hard to imagine shoddier treatment of paying clients. I'm sure the cheerleaders will find excuses but I'm disgusted. 

3 hours ago, IPB4IGO said:

I sure hope the hotel's laundry, room service, and views are as good as our cabin.

.... likely not.

But good luck and good health to you both. Your postings continue to provide a wealth of information. 

1 hour ago, Oceansaway17 said:

I still do not understand why any ship cannot go to their own island.   The Bahamas seem to look the other way if ya want to go to Nassau.   Just crazy I say

HMC may be 'owned' by Carnival -- just as some islands are privately owned in U.S. territorial waters -- but Bahamas remains the sovereign authority. As such, Bahamian law trumps the real or imagined entitlements of cruise clients many of whom, I assume, would not advocate foreigners being allowed entry without inspection or conditions into the United States just because the holding company of the ship they were aboard had purchased an island.

44 minutes ago, IPB4IGO said:

44 minutes ago, IPB4IGO said:

.... We look forward to the return cruise, when we will be on the "shady" side of the ship

 

As an aside, there's a widely-quoted claim that POSH (port out starboard home) was the preference for the well-heeled British traveler to India during the height of Empire. Certainly the preferred cabins were on the left-hand side of the ship outbound to India and the right side on the return to Britain. Both were the shaded-side of the ship, which in the era before air conditioning was especially valued for travel in the tropics. 

It's a great story. And includes claims that these particularly desirable tickets for cabins on the shady side were stamped "POSH" and formed the the acronym which became the word meaning fancy or upper class and (sometimes) hoity or snobbish. 

No evidence has been found to support this fanciful etymology. No tickets, no nautical references. Nothing.

Rather 'posh' seems to have emerged early in the 20th century in non-nautical circumstances. 

OP: Seems probable to me that HAL doesn't want you, nor others who are quarantined, nor the rest of the passengers and probably not the outside world, to know how many are infected.

But ... do you have a sense from the size of the quarantine section and/or how many of those cabins are occupied.

A few, more than a dozen, dozens?

Is it possible to estimate?

4 minutes ago, VMax1700 said:

That is a good idea but would require data package and knowing other pax contact details.  My suggestion was based on just using the stateroom telephone and call the room next door and next door but one etc.   I know, old fashioned, but it could be fun and pass a bit of time!

I agree that the stateroom phone is -- by far -- the best first step to establish who is quarantined. If a group system of communication follows it's a useful addition, not a substitute. And far easier to manage for collective communications, albeit limited to those with online access.  

2 minutes ago, VMax1700 said:

Have you tried phoning others in the adjoining quarantine rooms to introduce yourself and discuss what each other has experienced?  Start a knowledge pool amongst yourselves.

I agree. An email list or What's App group of the 'quarantined' will also provide you collectively with support and leverage when dealing with HAL. 

1 hour ago, mcrcruiser said:

test kits are not free .The last I saw the 5 kits cost $ 150  plus tax & cost to ship them

Oh woe.

How's this for a consideration.

If you can afford to cruise, you can afford to purchase tests, not so much as to guarantee yourself that you can wander around someone else's country but rather so they can be reasonably assured that you are not an irresponsible carrier of a deadly disease.  

Like it or not, the decisions of many governments are intended to  protect the large and vulnerable portions of their populations who -- unlike anti-vaxxers in the U.S. -- are without access to to vaccines (let alone boosters) which remain in scarce supply outside of the richest nations and where medical facilities are already stretched.

The downside risk for the Caymans other islands nations is that among the hordes of day visitors coming off cruise ships there may be some who are carriers of a deadly disease. That trumps the increasingly limited economic value of short-stay cruise passengers increasingly herded into cruise company outings. 

Puerto Rico has also announced that it will deny port facilities to cruise ships unless they can show individual negative tests for all passengers/crew intending to come ashore within the preceding 48 hours.

Odyssey of the Seas -- with 50+ confirmed COVID cases -- has been denied entry to two more island ports and will, per Royal Caribbean, remain at sea until this weekend when it's eight-day cruise was to end. 

"“The decision was made together with the islands out of an abundance of caution due to the current trend of COVID-19 cases in the destinations’ communities as well as crew and guests testing positive on board — 55 crew members and guests, representing 1.1% of the onboard community,” Royal Caribbean said in a statement. “The cruise sailed with 95% of the onboard community fully vaccinated.”

RC seems to be of the view that scores of people carrying a high-infectious, potentially deadly disease, is okay because it's only one percent. Perhaps I'm misreading the tone.

Assuming you will be allowed ashore is a low-probability expectation.

Anyone who spends money on a cruise this winter should anticipate they are sailing on a pariah ship.

For those who don't mind all sea days, it may be money well spent. 

Pity, but true