chengkp75

Okay, here's the deal. The examples mentioned above about people whose flights missed the ship and were flown to the next port, are examples where the cruise line has taken responsibility to get the passenger to the ship, and the cruise line will either have swallowed the PVSA fine as part of the guarantee to get you to the ship, or the cruise line appealed to CBP to waive the fine since it was an airline problem that caused the violation, and therefore outside the control of the cruise line. In the OP's situation, since the cruise line clearly states that it is the passenger's responsibility to have the proper documentation, they will not allow the OP to board in Ketchikan, as this would be a willful violation of the PVSA on their part. So, unfortunately, the OP either has the passport, or doesn't cruise.

No, by law they are not allowed to operate in certain ice conditions, whether with a pristine hull, or with a few dents. The damage shown has done nothing to the thickness or strength of the hull.

Right with you Andy. I don't see any deformation of framing, and the folds in the shell plating are not abrupt enough to likely warrant repair before next scheduled drydock. I don't see any cracking evident. Many ships, other than cruise ships for esthetic reasons, would likely allow this damage to remain for the life of the vessel. I will disagree with the poster linked above, who claims that there is likely 2" of steel there. The thickest steel I've seen, only at strategic high stress locations, is about 1-1/4", and at the place on the hull where Saturn is damaged, I would expect about 3/4" thickness.

Yes, there is a big blue one that surrounds the boat, called the ocean. In a survival condition, dignity and privacy have no bearing.

The rule on no food or water for the first day is to stretch the rations as long as possible. Unlike the expectations of most cruisers, that they will be only in the boats for a couple of hours, it is very likely that in many circumstances it will be days before folks are rescued from the boats. The "big strong men" provide what we call the "ash breeze" (the oar power to move the boat).

While HAL is a US corporation, the ship itself is the entity that offers the accommodation, and therefore the entity that has to meet the ADA, to a degree. All cruise lines that offer cruises out of the US are required to meet ADA regulations, with regards to accessible cabins, and non-discrimination for them, and to allow service dogs. However, as I've said, and SCOTUS ruled, "internal policies and procedures" for service dogs while onboard are at the cruise line's discretion (i.e., they could deny a service dog in certain areas of the ship (even if that violated the ADA in the US), or other policies like a "service dog code of conduct" that may be different from the DOJ's rules for service dogs). I was an ADA compliance officer on a cruise ship that transitioned from foreign flag (sailing out of US ports) to a US flag (fully compliant) ship.

Close, but CBP's ruling is that the foreign crew need US work visas (with the attendant cost and paperwork) not just crew visas that they now have. They do not need to be citizens or resident aliens. Cruises to nowhere are still allowed under the PVSA, but it is not considered financially practical for the cruise lines to obtain the work visas for all the crew, so they no longer offer them.

This is not correct. If CBSA prohibits a passenger from leaving the ship in Canada, security will be notified, and that passenger's sign and sail card will be flagged, and he/she will not be allowed to disembark.

Just a reminder of what I have posted on this thread, and others, that not all requirements of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships. SCOTUS, in Spector v NCL, ruled that the "internal policies and procedures" of the ship do not fall under the jurisdiction of the ADA, so specific policies regarding service animals, once onboard, are up to the cruise line's decision.

Unless something failed on the lowering equipment, a boat, loaded or unloaded, would not land on its side.

The ship is required to have 75% capacity in boats, the remainder in inflatable rafts. The photo that birdtravels shows is a davit launched raft, that is loaded at the promenade deck and lowered to the water. A typical crew drill with these rafts include putting the raft into the pool, upside down, and training the crew to right the raft. What you describe are MES (Marine Evacuation Systems), that deploy 4-6 rafts in a cluster, and there is a chute down to the rafts. Inside the chutes, there are baffles that slow and twist the person down, so it is not a straight fall. Typically, the injuries with MES happen if too many people are let into the chute too quickly, and the crew at the bottom cannot get those that have landed out of the way in time. The chute leads to one raft, and the early arrivals are directed to the other rafts, only filling the one with the chute last. Yes, they are used for both crew and passengers.

Well, there would need to be several boats/rafts damaged, since the ship is required to carry capacity 125% for all crew and max capacity passengers. So, a ship like Oasis has about 2200 extra spaces in boats and rafts (more if less passengers are booked). But, if it did happen, they would either need to disembark passengers or crew to get to the required number.

30 gallons of diesel at around 7 lbs/gallon is 210 pounds. 150 people x 82.5 kg/person x 2.2 lbs per kg is 27,000 lbs. 1 lb per person for 150 persons is 150 lbs. One point five liters of water is 1.5kg x 2.2 lbs per kg x 150 is 500 lbs, so yes, my total for supplies is off a little, but compared to the weight of the passengers, it is minimal. Batteries would add about another 100-150 lbs. Lifeboat engines, while in the 40-150 hp range (depending on size of boat), are not designed for speed, and are only required to have enough fuel for 24 hours. Lifeboats are not designed to undertake Captain Cook's voyage, but to stay in the location of the ship, which is where the search will start. Cruise ship lifeboats are not "self-righting", meaning they will not roll back upright. They are also "semi-enclosed", meaning that if the boat is landed in an attitude that the gunwale is underwater on one side, it will fill with water, and the boat covering will also act to scoop water into the boat, and continue the roll of the boat to inverted.

Yes, it didn't land upright, it was tilted in one direction or the other. It didn't really "turn over", it was going over as it fell. Lifeboats are designed for one thing, to take a quantity of people away from the ship, once. And, yes, the ballast of the people provides the center of gravity to be low enough that it won't tip over when loaded. A lifeboat floating with no one onboard is one of the most poorly handling of boats, and not real stable. As for other supplies, there is about 1 lb of food for each person, and 1.5 liters of water per person (this is designed as 3 days rations). Many boats do not have batteries, relying on hydraulic starting for the engine. Fuel is about 30 gallons. So, all those supplies are around 400-500 lbs, while the full load of passengers (at the design weight of 82.5kg) is around 27,000 lbs.

It's actually quite easy for a lifeboat to overturn, especially if there are not 150 passengers acting as ballast to weight the bottom. Retrieval of a lifeboat is one of the most inherently dangerous activities that mariners have to deal with. When reconnecting the boat to the wire "falls", both heavy pulley/hooks have to be engaged in the release device in the boat and then the securing lever is thrown. If one or the other hook is not securely fastened to the release mechanism, the boat can be lifted out of the water until that hook slips out of the release gear and one end of the boat falls free, followed soon by the other end as the release device lets go. This is why even when the boats are lowered for drills with 2-3 crewmen onboard, while hoisting back onboard, they will normally take all the crew out of the boat during lifting. This will likely be found to be a crew training accident, where the crew don't have enough experience with the release gear to recognize whether it is fully engaged or not.

From what you describe as the itinerary, there is no legal reason for not allowing you to disembark early. However, Cunard may reserve the right to charge you fees for the changing/resubmitting of the passenger manifest for the remainder of the cruise, or until the end of the next segment, and for having a CBP agent available to clear you off the ship, rather than the rather automatic clearing of the ship for "day pass" port calls. I would hope that you feel the same way about the cabotage laws of the EU, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and China, along with the others of the 80+ nations that have maritime cabotage laws. And, besides, the PVSA applies to much more than cruise ships.

As l said before, the EU has the ShipSan program, which is very similar to the USPH VSP.

It's simply because of the USPH requirements that food borne illness is so rare on cruise ships.

If the "reinspection" was done by ship's supervisors, I'm sure it would be. I can guarantee that given the initial inspection report, that a USPH inspection the next day would likely be passing, but nowhere near 100.

No, the USPH uses temperature control when food is held/prepared in something where the temperature can be monitored/guaranteed, like a "hot box" warming cabinet, or a reach in refrigerator. Once it goes out of temperature control, even if a hazardous food goes into the "hazard temperature zones", by discarding at the 4 hour mark, the potential for toxin growth is not great enough to present a hazard. And, once a food has gone into "time control", even if the food is not placed on the buffet line until just before closing (say 5-10 minutes), it can never go back under temperature control (meaning it has to be discarded, and not put back into a refrigerator or warming box).

The EU has their ShipSan sanitation program, but it relies on each member nation enforcing it in their port cities, and there is no central reporting agency.

This is the disturbing portion of your post. Yes, a new pan should have come from a temperature controlled warming cabinet. Once any item is placed on the buffet line, it is no longer under temperature control, but under time control, where everything is discarded after 4 hours outside of temperature control. Steam or ice tables do not provide temperature control.

Just curious. How much was the extra tour to see the back of house areas to determine that all problems were resolved promptly. Even in the case of the food found out of temperature range, while that food was removed, what was the root cause for the food being out of range? Improper storage and handling (this requires training over time), or faulty refrigeration (no mention that this was repaired). Record keeping violations are not "resolved promptly" but require training and monitoring over time. Complete misunderstanding of the AGE reporting process, which means it is not a "one time" problem, and again needs time and training. In all, there are about 5-6 of the noted violations that could be seen by a passenger. And, even when a problem is resolved at the time of the inspection, without the proper training and supervision, there is no guarantee that the issue will not happen again, perhaps as soon as the next day.

Typically, both, as evaporator requires a lot of waste heat from the generators, meaning higher speeds, while RO can be made at lower speeds, or to supplement the evaporators.

Yes, it doesn't look like a corporate problem like Silversea had a few years ago. This is a ship that has gotten lazy