Antartctia

Understand that by treaty, no ship with more than 500 pax (viz. all of Princess' ships) may

land pax on the continent. If you're on Princess, it's strictly a sail-by voyage.

Also, as I understand it, type of fuel oil used dictates

which type of Ship is allowed into Antarctica

We were on the Marco Polo, Orient Lines, when we went.

Approx 650 paxs; however, only about 350 were aboard.

The Zodiacs held 14 + driver.

Six Zodiacs left the ship.

Three Zodiacs landed and then

about 15 min. later the other three

landed.

As was mentioned, we were divided into four groups.

Antarctica is like the Galapagos Islands; you take nothing

in with you; and, you do not bring anything out.

They must be preserved

I'm not sure if the itinerary will be the same, but when I was on the Star Princess to Antarctica in 2010, we had four days of scenic cruising along the Antarctic Peninsula. The first day was Elephant Island and the Endurance Glacier. The second day was Antarctic Sound (Iceberg Alley) and Admiralty Bay, where we went by the Artowski Research Station and some scientists came on board. The third day was Gerlache Strait and Neumayer Channel. The fourth day was Deception Island. Lots of amazing scenery! We had several different lecturers and an ice pilot on board, so there were some fascinating presentations.

 

I'd love to do this cruise again, although prices seem a bit steep: the 16-day cruises in 2019/20 are nearly double what I paid for a 20-day cruise in 2010. I'll probably just wait and see if prices drop closer to the sailing date.

I'll second your itinerary almost exactly..

We were on the Star in Antarctica in Feburary 2010, and that was our itinerary almost exactly during those 4 days too.

Absolutely a magical cruise

Srpilo

Also, as I understand it, type of fuel oil used dictates which type of Ship is allowed into Antarctica

It is more a case of if you cruise in Antarctica the ship must use a certain type of fuel.

When Princess does not go to Antarctica it is because they have not chosen to purchase this more expensive fuel.

It is more a case of if you cruise in Antarctica the ship must use a certain type of fuel.

 

When Princess does not go to Antarctica it is because they have not chosen to purchase this more expensive fuel.

While there is a "no heavy fuel oil" issue just to sail below 60ºS, I was

replying to FoM-BNM's post with advice about landing on the continent.

https://iaato.org/bylaws Article X, §A(3) says that ships sailing with more

than 500 pax are not permitted to land any pax on the continent.

Imagine the fares Princess would need to charge with that many empty cabins.

While there is a "no heavy fuel oil" issue just to sail below 60ºS, I was

replying to FoM-BNM's post with advice about landing on the continent.

 

https://iaato.org/bylaws Article X, §A(3) says that ships sailing with more

than 500 pax are not permitted to land any pax on the continent.

 

Imagine the fares Princess would need to charge with that many empty cabins.

You have mentioned the major points. In addition, it would be virtually impossible to take people ashore in the tenders as there are no jetties or wharves in Antarctica. I went with Quark on an expedition ship and we went ashore in zodiacs that could run up onto the pebbly beach. Even so most people needed a hand to disembark and we had to step into water that was at least a foot deep (sometimes more). Naturally we wore waterproof boots that went nearly to our knees, with waterproof pants over warm clothing. We were told that the company was not permitted to have more than 100 people on shore at any one time. We had 194 pax so we were divided into groups so half would go ashore while the other half went on a wildlife-spotting zodiac ride. We did two landings every 'shore day', with three on one occasion.

The experience on an expedition ship was quite different from a cruise, but I was pleasantly surprised how good the food was and also the service. I was on a 20 night cruise that included the Falkland Islands and South Georgia (the latter was fantastic). I loved the trip and it will stay in my memory to the end of my days, however, it was more strenuous than I thought it would be.

I was on a Quark expedition, this year and this really is the best way to see the Antarctica. I felt like an explorer as opposed to being on a cruise ship doing my usual cruising thing. Price was a lot more of course..

You have mentioned the major points. In addition, it would be virtually impossible to take people ashore in the tenders as there are no jetties or wharves in Antarctica. I went with Quark on an expedition ship and we went ashore in zodiacs that could run up onto the pebbly beach. Even so most people needed a hand to disembark and we had to step into water that was at least a foot deep (sometimes more). Naturally we wore waterproof boots that went nearly to our knees, with waterproof pants over warm clothing. We were told that the company was not permitted to have more than 100 people on shore at any one time. We had 194 pax so we were divided into groups so half would go ashore while the other half went on a wildlife-spotting zodiac ride. We did two landings every 'shore day', with three on one occasion.

 

The experience on an expedition ship was quite different from a cruise, but I was pleasantly surprised how good the food was and also the service. I was on a 20 night cruise that included the Falkland Islands and South Georgia (the latter was fantastic). I loved the trip and it will stay in my memory to the end of my days, however, it was more strenuous than I thought it would be.

Several research bases do have jetties and wharves. On Hurtigruten's Fram we moored broadside to a large wharf on the White Continent and walked the grounds of the station. It also has an airstrip for moving supplies further south towards the Pole. The one we landed at was Rothera.

This is the Antarctica cruise that we will be sailing on. Unlike Princess, they keep raising the fares closer to sailing. It has gone up more than 8k PP since we booked and paid in April 2017.

https://www.silversea.com/destinations/antarctica-cruise/ushuaia-to-ushuaia-1829.html?fycref=row1

Antarctica has always been on my bucket list of places to experience (also it is the last remaining continent for me to visit). Unfortunately, I am also prone to sea sickness on cruises with rough seas (although with medications, I was fine during my South America around Cape Horn Princess cruise a decade ago). It is my understanding that the Drake passage on the way to Antarctica from South America is notorious for very rough seas. Can people who have previously been on this Antarctica cruise comment on their experiences?

. It is my understanding that the Drake passage on the way to Antarctica from South America is notorious for very rough seas. Can people who have previously been on this Antarctica cruise comment on their experiences?

The Drake passage is the roughest in world. I sailed there on the Marco Polo before that ship was retired. Here's a good description

Seasoned Antarctic cruisers and cargo vessel crew warn that the Drake Passage has only two temperaments: “the Drake Shake” or “the Drake Lake.” More often than not it’s the former, and ship windows quickly resemble washing machines with the constant froth of high waves.

This global transportation bottleneck some 600 miles wide marks the convergence of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern Oceans. Its volatility, where the waves, winds, and currents all seemingly conspire against any intrepid adventurers, is due to the Drake's position as a zone of climactic transition; the Passage divides the the cool, sub-polar conditions of the southernmost bits of South America from the frigid, polar regions of Antarctica

Antarctica has always been on my bucket list of places to experience (also it is the last remaining continent for me to visit). Unfortunately, I am also prone to sea sickness on cruises with rough seas (although with medications, I was fine during my South America around Cape Horn Princess cruise a decade ago). It is my understanding that the Drake passage on the way to Antarctica from South America is notorious for very rough seas. Can people who have previously been on this Antarctica cruise comment on their experiences?

When you were looking at Cape Horn (or peering thru the scud between you and

it :o ) you were in Drake Passage. If you actually got to see the Cape, you were

there on a good day, and it does get a lot worse.

The trade-off is that if you want to set foot on that continent, it'll be from a smaller

--and therefore more lively-- ship than that Princess ship.

NJCruiser family and Antarctica-the Drake Shake

Yes we did get to enjoy the Drake Shake, rough seas from Falklands to Antarctica, and then really rough from Antarctica to Cape horn.

We were on Zaandam cabin 6102 at front of ship under bridge. Seas over 20ft and every once in a while a big one to 30ft. It hit our cabin window!

We took gravol and were ok.

The outside promenade doors were roped shut and wind and rain howled by the doors. Some large pots fell over and some damage in kitchen/buffet.

Everyone was walking with a list to match ship.

Trip was Buenos Aires to Santiago and Best Cruise we have taken.

The calm sailing through Antarctic archipelago is amazing, glaciers, snow, birds and sealife abound. So much more than an Alaska cruise.

Do not hesitate, and book this one!!

Enjoy!:)

We were on the Star Princess in 2010 in Antarctica. Great cruise. I thought that was her last cruise there according to what the Captain told me.---Anyway--- here are the rules today---

"Rigorous standards apply to all commercial tourist operators who intend to conduct travel to Antarctica. Tourism operators must notify their National Authority in advance of their plans in order for the government agency (in the U.S. this is the Department of State) to verify they have jurisdiction over the operation and then file a detailed environmental impact assessment (in the U.S. this is to the Environmental Protection Agency) to verify that their planned activity will have less than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems — a requirement by the governments involved in managing Antarctica (these are the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties). Again, these regulations apply to all tourism operators — not just the larger cruise ship operators.

Additionally, all ships must comply with applicable international marine legislation that applies to virtually all ships at sea, including compliance with fuel oil standards adopted within the International Maritime Organisation that require ships to burn lighter-grade fuels while in the Antarctic Treaty Area (the sea south of 60 SOUTH LATITUDE). This requirement came into effect in mid-August 2011 and has required a number of the larger ships (cruise-only vessels, icebreakers, and expedition ships alike) to switch from burning heavy fuel oil to lighter-grade fuels, such as marine gas oil.

An additional regulation placed on the large cruise ships by IAATO and more recently the Antarctic Treaty Parties is that if the vessel is carrying more than 500 passengers on board, it is not allowed to land any passengers while in Antarctic waters. This means these operators are then cruise-only.

Otherwise, the same rigorous standards apply to these cruise-only operators as they do to all other ship operators.

All IAATO members are to meet all of the association's standard operating procedures and established procedures and guidelines designed to promote safe and responsible operations in Antarctica. Examples of this include:

---Having adequate insurance and contingency plans in place; and

---Hiring Bridge officers with appropriate experience."

It is my understanding that the Drake passage on the way to Antarctica from South America is notorious for very rough seas. Can people who have previously been on this Antarctica cruise comment on their experiences?

Smooth sailing both directions when we did this itinerary on the Golden Princess a few years ago.

Smooth sailing both directions when we did this itinerary on the Golden Princess a few years ago.

So, you didn't get the ...full ride. Did they offer you a partial refund? :halo:

We have visited the Horn twice, once on HAL the other on the Star Princess. Both times the seas were calm, lot of fog though on the first visit, on the second we almost had a clear day. On the Star we went on down to Antarctica, flat seas all the way down and back (Drake Passage), however, the Captain was a little concerned on the way back since a big blow was forecast moving into the Southern Ocean from the Pacific so he didn't waste time getting back to South America and the Falklands.

The Antarctic Peninsula is about the only place worth visiting since the rest of the Continent is surrounded by mostly oceanic ice cliffs where the massive ice sheet terminates in the ocean, while the Peninsula is quite scenic, partly due to it mountains which mark the southern end of a long chain of mountains that runs almost continuously from Alaska down the western side of the Americas to Antarctica. There one finds lots of sea life intermingled with icebergs, bergy bits, growlers, brash ice, tabular bergs both large and small and massive ice islands. 60 degrees South Latitude is still north of all of Antarctica. At 61 degrees South most cruise ships usually turn around and head back. 66.5 degrees South is the Antarctic Circle which cuts through the base of the Peninsula. To put that in perspective, Anchorage Alaska is at 61 degrees north latitude. To give you an idea how huge the Antarctic Continent is, one fellow, an M.D., said at our dinner table the night before we approached the Peninsula that he had taken a rough measurement and had calculated we would be within 200 miles of the Pole the next day. Actually, we were 2,500 miles from the South Pole the next day.

It is true that weather in the Drake Passage can really get snotty, I believe however that its notorious reputation comes a lot from days of yore when the sailing ships "Doubled the Horn". Most sea traffic then moved from east to west since the California gold fields were such an attraction to the young "Go West Young Man Go West." Prevailing winds and sea down there is from west to east therefore ships had to sail against the wind. You could only double the horn when sailing west. "Doubling the Horn entails sailing nonstop from a point above the 50th parallel in the Atlantic, down around the Horn and back to a point above the 50th parallel in the Pacific. Only this near 1,000-mile passage was considered a genuine Cape Horn rounding." I recall listening to a lecture when down there that the fastest record, at one time, was three months in getting from east to west under sail.

I can't say we doubled the Horn on HAL since we went from west to east on our cruise. An old sea chantey says: "From 50 south to 50 south you won’t grow fat and lazy boys----For the winds that howl around Cape Horn, will surely drive you crazy boys,"

We did Antarctica on the Star in 2010.

Here is the Live From I posted back then. You will not be disappointed in any cruise around Antarctica...

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1134239

Hi if sailing Santiago to Buenos Aires which side of the ship would be best for Antarctic viewing? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Hi if sailing Santiago to Buenos Aires which side of the ship would be best for Antarctic viewing? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Honestly, the answer is both. No matter which side you book, you will want to be outside on deck at times to see the views from the other side.

Honestly, the answer is both. No matter which side you book, you will want to be outside on deck at times to see the views from the other side.

I agree. One will want to be on an open deck. Camera photos taken from inside are OK, but the pictures will be better if one is able to take them with no glass between the scenery and you.

If you really want a more unique cruise to Antarctica do a trip to the Ross sea instead of to the Peninsula. 95 % of those that cruise to Antarctica go to the Peninsula because it is relatively easy to get to. Lindblad used to do the Ross Sea with the Lindblad Explorer back in the 70's and 80's. I was at McMurdo Station working on a Geophysics project one year when it pulled in (Spent 3 seasons doing traverses across the sea ice in McMurdo sound between Ross Island and the Strand Morraine at the end of the dry valleys, doing field work for a month at a time).

These days there are some ice breaker class vessels that do the cruise out of New Zealand.

That route takes you through the true age of Antarctic exploration with the huts at Cape Royds (Scott), Cape Evans (Shackleford) and Scott's last one at the harbor at McMurdo. The New Zealand Antarctic program has done substantial work preserving those huts. The pack ice usually lets one get to the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf in late Jan, and Feb. As well as access several points on land on the continent and on Ross island.

So if you can afford it and want to see the history of exploration as well as the scenery and animal life it is truly unique.

If you really want a more unique cruise to Antarctica do a trip to the Ross sea instead of to the Peninsula. 95 % of those that cruise to Antarctica go to the Peninsula because it is relatively easy to get to. Lindblad used to do the Ross Sea with the Lindblad Explorer back in the 70's and 80's. I was at McMurdo Station working on a Geophysics project one year when it pulled in (Spent 3 seasons doing traverses across the sea ice in McMurdo sound between Ross Island and the Strand Morraine at the end of the dry valleys, doing field work for a month at a time).

 

These days there are some ice breaker class vessels that do the cruise out of New Zealand.

 

That route takes you through the true age of Antarctic exploration with the huts at Cape Royds (Scott), Cape Evans (Shackleford) and Scott's last one at the harbor at McMurdo. The New Zealand Antarctic program has done substantial work preserving those huts. The pack ice usually lets one get to the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf in late Jan, and Feb. As well as access several points on land on the continent and on Ross island.

 

So if you can afford it and want to see the history of exploration as well as the scenery and animal life it is truly unique.

Most here are not interested in landings on the White Continent, rather want to claim an "Antarctic" cruise by driving by a few miles off the peninsula. Its like saying you have experienced New York City seen it from a cruise ship off Long Island.

I’m not sure how anyone could determine that most here have no interest in setting foot in Antarctica.

Maybe that is true...maybe it’s not. My ‘guess’ is that most everyone here would much prefer to do just that but several factors likely prevent most from doing so. Those could include:

- The cost of a land based visit.

- The physical limitations of some that would not support going ashore in a dingy (or other slightly larger craft).

- The limited size of the ships that can support this type of visit and potential for a much rougher voyage given its size not to mention limited space and amenities.

- Some feel allowing 10’s of thousands of people to visit by land would damage the sensitive environment and sailing through is a compromise that allows many to experience the area without leaving a footprint (or worse) on the ice.

- Did I mention the cost?

Finally let me add one last thing. How many visit the amazing locations such as Glacier Bay National Park, College Fjord and other beautiful sea accessible areas of Alaska or others in New Zealand, Norway and Chile? How many of them are able to disembark in those places and set foot on the actual glacier or fjord? Yes, ports in the region are accessible but sailing into these areas without going ashore is nonetheless enjoyed by many thousands each year. Yes, enjoyed from the railing of a ship and almost always something they will never forget.

Chris

I’m not sure how anyone could determine that most here have no interest in setting foot in Antarctica.

 

Maybe that is true...maybe it’s not. My ‘guess’ is that most everyone here would much prefer to do just that but several factors likely prevent most from doing so. Those could include:

 

- The cost of a land based visit.

 

- The physical limitations of some that would not support going ashore in a dingy (or other slightly larger craft).

 

- The limited size of the ships that can support this type of visit and potential for a much rougher voyage given its size not to mention limited space and amenities.

 

- Some feel allowing 10’s of thousands of people to visit by land would damage the sensitive environment and sailing through is a compromise that allows many to experience the area without leaving a footprint (or worse) on the ice.

 

- Did I mention the cost?

 

Finally let me add one last thing. How many visit the amazing locations such as Glacier Bay National Park, College Fjord and other beautiful sea accessible areas of Alaska or others in New Zealand, Norway and Chile? How many of them are able to disembark in those places and set foot on the actual glacier or fjord? Yes, ports in the region are accessible but sailing into these areas without going ashore is nonetheless enjoyed by many thousands each year. Yes, enjoyed from the railing of a ship and almost always something they will never forget.

 

Chris

Amen and thank you for your thoughtful response to a haughty post. Seriously?? The cruise itself is a gift for the people who can actually do it. This simple "drive by" is not inexpensive for most people...

"Imagine a place where time ceased to exist, a place of unsurpassed and unforgiving beauty. A place of endless quiet. Imagine no more. The Frozen Continent."

For one interested in Antarctica, especially visiting there, I recommend getting hold of a copy of Bernard Stonehouse's "Antarctica from South America". Stonehouse also wrote a longer one "The Last Continent: Discovering Antarctica" which he wrote earlier but the latter is likely difficult to find. Stonehouse spent most of his professional life in Antarctica, a lot of which was with dog teams.

Personally, being born and raised and having spent my entire life in a land of ice and snow and the Alaska wilderness it makes little difference to me whether I step off onto an ice berg or piece of Continent. However, having flown many tourists onto Alaska's glaciers and seen and heard the awe and appreciation expressed by visitors, I have nothing but respect for those who spend the time and money to do so.

Actually it was my wife who found the cruise to Antarctica in 2010 and I reluctantly agreed to go along. Was I glad I did that. It was much more than I expected, we sailed around down there on a large vessel for three days, Elephant Island, Admiralty Bay, Esperanza Station, Deception Island, Neumayer Glacier and much more. That doesn't count the three sea days getting there from Buenos Aires and the sailing day back across Drake Passage to the Cape.

Of course, I would dearly love to do this again, perhaps on a smaller vessels equipped with Zodiacs, with time and luck maybe I well. I do spend my summers in the Wrangell Mountains of Alaska and do have a lot of young friends who guide mountain climbers and glacier hikers here during the summer, many of which spend their winters working in Antarctica at the US stations down there. None get to see the Peninsula though and are somewhat amazed at the pictures and when I tell them about it.