Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About chengkp75

  • Rank
    10,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Maine or at sea
  • Interests
    Former cruise ship Chief Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I believe the charge is negligent homicide, not manslaughter, unless it has changed.
  2. The lawyer claims there are 13 cameras "in the area", not that there are 13 cameras pointed at the window where the accident happened. These interior cameras are mostly not pan/tilt movable cameras, so if they aren't pointed at the specific area, they won't show anything. I would be surprised if there were more than 2-3 cameras that showed a close/medium range view of the area around the window. The cameras along the side of the ship are of the pan/tilt type, and frequently, when in port, are pointed and zoomed in close on the gangways, so these may or may not show anything.
  3. When I worked there, it was a monthly award, to the crew member who got the most cards over the month.
  4. What is your definition of "mishap"? Cause everywhere I look it is "an unfortunate accident", and a synonym of "accident". And, I don't believe that "most people" think accidents cannot be avoided or controlled. "I was peeling an apple, and had an accident with the knife and cut my finger". That action could have been avoided or controlled. But this is parsing semantics. People are held accountable for "accidents" all the time.
  5. The SOLAS requirement for passenger muster drill is once every 30 days.
  6. Way too early to determine if this takes their plastic "reduction" plan beyond the lip service status. Joining this group, after all, costs Carnival nothing, and gains them good PR, and the good graces of the judge. Whether anything of value comes from the network, and whether Carnival implements anything recommended by the group remains to be seen, and will be a while down the road.
  7. Is it an accident? Yes. Is it negligent? I don't think a "reasonable person" would think of holding a child out an 11th story window, so Yes. So, the grandfather's negligent actions led to the accident, and under the law he can be held accountable for his actions. Just as the parents want RCI held responsible for "negligence" in the design of the ship, the law says that the grandfather can be held responsible for his negligence.
  8. This is absolutely correct, but their suit is that RCI was negligent in the design of the window. As long as the applicable standards are met, there can be no negligence in the design. Now, if they wanted to sue the IMO for negligence in the SOLAS regulations, that would be a different ball game. Actually, what the grandfather did has been legislated for, it is the definition of negligent homicide, i.e. if a "reasonable person" would think the act was dangerous or negligent, then the person doing the act is responsible for the death.
  9. And yet you continue to provide links to the technical aspects of azipods. Lloyd's and the insurance industry did not "step in", they have been involved in this from the start, and have been involved with azipods from their inception, as their design is inspected, and their construction is inspected by LR before they are given a class certificate and allowed to be used on LR classed ships. LR and class societies give class approval to virtually every piece of equipment used to build a ship, down to certain valves in the engine room, and flooring and wall materials. Again, the class society provides an underwriting service that the flag states and the P&I clubs use to ensure quality of shipbuilding and operation, but remember that the P&I insurance is mutual insurance, owned by the ship owners themselves, so the symbiosis does not lead to the class societies placing pressures on the ship owners, more than the ship owners are willing to accept, since they are free to choose a different class society and/or join a different P&I club. While I would not characterize myself as an azipod "expert", I have operated, maintained, and repaired them, which places me in the knowledge stream that sees technical bulletins and also the "industry best practices" as set forth by the class societies and the manufacturer.
  10. I don't deal with US construction or OSHA codes, so I'm not sure of the exact requirements either, but the ships do not have to meet any US code. The ships must meet SOLAS requirements, which are similar to what you mention, but here is what is in the US Code (the US law that enables the SOLAS requirements): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/116.900 This is the only standard that the ship needs to meet, not any other "industry standard" that the lawyer claims would apply.
  11. It depends far more on the agriculture and health laws in NZ and Tonga than on the cruise line. In most countries, factory sealed food (especially non-"potentially hazardous foods" like chocolate are not worries. Fruits, vegetables, and things that need refrigeration (potentially hazardous foods), are the main concerns. Try googling the customs laws to see about food exports and imports in the two countries.
  12. Well, this assumes that the cruise line pays taxes on its revenues, which for the most part they don't. Also, while I'm not fully conversant with all of the tax codes in all the countries that the crew come from, I can state that any "gratuity" that is paid from the employer and not directly from a customer, is considered to be normal income for a Filipino worker working outside the country, and I seem to recall seeing the same thing for Indonesia, so accounting for the bulk of cruise ship crew. Despite what is told about DSC, it is done for two reasons only: one, to be able to lower the advertised cruise fare, and two, to attempt to form a "team" service culture where the crew enforce good service (since one crew's poor performance can affect all the crew) through peer pressure (taking the onus of strict supervision off the cruise line), and being able to blame the reduction of wage on the passenger and not the cruise line.
  13. Yes, the thrust bearing is the leading failure component. The reason for this is the space available in the pod. For a ship with shafted propellers, the thrust bearing would be around 6+ feet in diameter to give enough bearing area to absorb the full thrust of the propeller (this bearing transfers the entire force of the propeller to the ship to move its total weight through the water), and since it is inside the ship, size doesn't matter, and the ancillary equipment for the thrust bearing (oil pumps, sumps, filters, etc) can be grouped around and below the bearings, this equipment is simpler. In a pod, the thrust bearing to accept the same thrust will be 1-2 feet smaller in diameter to be able to fit inside the pod with all the other stuff in there, so increasing the unit load (pounds per square inch) on the bearing metal, and you also cannot have large oil sumps below the bearing to collect the oil, and need an additional pump to get the oil from the bearing in the pod up to the sump and filter, etc. The increase in unit loading of the bearing is where the problem lies, as there is ongoing study of the metallurgy of the bearing material and design of the bearing surface and shape to obtain the optimum oil film required to minimize bearing wear. As for the increase in azipod vessels, I don't see them expanding out of their current market of passenger vessels and specialty vessels. Passenger vessels (cruise ships) require huge amounts of propulsion power, and redundant systems (multiple propellers) and the use of azipods shows a great benefit here, as the capital cost for two azipods is less than two propulsion motors, and likely two variable pitch propellers, shafting, two rudders, four steering motors, and 2 or 3 stern thrusters. "Specialty" vessels like ice breakers and tugs already use azipod technology, because of again the simplicity of the installation, less stuff to get damaged by ice, more thrust in variable directions than can be gotten from props, rudders, and thrusters (particularly at speeds over 5 knots, where tunnel thrusters lose effectiveness), and other factors. As far as cruise ships are concerned, yes, there will continue to be nearly all large cruise ships built with azipods, even though there was a return to shafted propellers back a few years when azipod issues were first coming up, and also smaller ships don't see the cost advantage at building that larger ships do, so smaller ships like Viking may continue to use shafted propellers. The vast bulk of ocean shipping, however, gain very little, and lose cost in installing azipods, since you go from a single engine that is bolted directly to the propeller shaft and to a fixed pitch propeller, and a rudder and two steering motors, to having to have a diesel generator large enough to power the pod (so add a generator to the same engine as before), and then the variable frequency drive to change to electricity to allow the pod motor to turn at different speeds, and then the pod, along with a less than desirable stern design (for a cargo ship), and you have a much more complicated and costly initial investment in propulsion. As for reliability of azipods vs shafted propellers, there have been failures of both types over the last few years, but the failures of shafted systems are in the electrical systems (and cruise ship propulsion, of whatever design, has been primarily electrical for decades) and not in the bearings. Some of these electrical failures of shafted systems can be repaired easily and quickly, and some require large repairs as the Carribean Princess did last year. I would say that the comparative rate of failure that affects either a cruise ship's speed or takes it out of service, is about 6-8 azipod failures for every shafted propeller failure (and I believe I'm being conservative), and this with most of the shafted ships being older than the azipod ships.
  14. With all the comments about pictures of ice, and mention of the Great Lakes, I had pictured Viking wanting to operate these ships in the Lakes in winter. Looking at the fact that they are only Polar Class 6, this means only summer/autumn operation in medium first year ice. So, for us in the northern hemisphere, that is winter/spring in the Antarctic, and summer/autumn in the Artic. But the Great Lakes would require Polar Class 4 or 5. So, I looked and saw it was summer cruising in the Lakes.
  15. And just know that your CPAP may end up at the bottom of a luggage cart, with a couple of hundred pounds of luggage on top of it. There is no special handling of baggage, and the baggage handlers are not cruise line employees, and the cruise line will not be held responsible for damages caused by the baggage handlers.
  • Create New...